Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2026

Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
Published on: September 16, 2025
Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) err in testing the optical error hypothesis
Raôul R D Oudejans1, Frank C Bakker, Peter J Beek
1Institute for Fundamental and Clinical Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. r.oudejans@fbw.vu.nl
Abstract:
In this commentary, we react to the recent study by Helsen, Gilis and Weston (2006) on judging offside in football. Helsen et al. claim that their data falsify the optical error hypothesis presented by Oudejans et al. (2000). However, as we will elucidate here, they misinterpret this hypothesis and present a data set that is seriously flawed, and hence not suited to test it. Therefore, their conclusions regarding the optical error hypothesis are in error.
Related Concept Videos
Errors In Hypothesis Tests
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test
Behrens–Fisher Test
This test is...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Statistical Hypothesis Testing
Statistical significance measures the probability that an observed result occurred by chance. If this probability, known as...

