ArticlePeerJ2020
Effect of shooting experience on executive function: differences between experts and novices.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determining Cognitive Performance in Athletes: A Systematic Review Focused on Methodology of Applying Cognitive Tests.Scandinavian journal of psychology · 2025Pooled it
- Executive Function Strengths in Athletes: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of carbohydrate drinks ingestion on executive function in athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Pooled it
- Machine Learning-Based Classification of Alertness Levels in Elite Shooting Athletes Using Heart Rate Variability.Journal of sports science & medicine · 2026Article
- The Effects of Neurofeedback Training on Sustained Attention, Inhibition of Return, and Performance Under Pressure in National-Team Shooters.Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback · 2026Article
- The expert's fixation: cognitive efficiency and attentional selectivity in wheelchair curling athletes across the expertise spectrum.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cognitive processing characteristics of the advantage of assistant referee offside decision-making: evidence from eye movements and ERPs.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Psychomotor and Basic Cognitive Abilities in Professional Athletes: A Systematic Review.Journal of human kinetics · 2026Review
- Cognitive Flexibility Predicts Live-Fire Rifle Marksmanship in Airborne Cadets: A Pilot Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Exploring athletic expertise and conflict processing: behavioral and neural responses to head fakes and flanker tasks.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Cognition in soccer and futsal: evidence of validity of a 4-instrument protocol to assess executive functioning among women athletes.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Executive Function Level in Cadets' Shooting Performance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Alternating Attention and Physical Fitness in Relation to the Level of Combat Training.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExecutive function (EF) plays an important role in controlling human actions. Shooting is a closed motor skill, characterized by high anti-interference ability and high mental intensity. However, the beneficial effects of closed exercises such as shooting on EF remain unclear.
methodsWe utilized an expert-novice paradigm and the Flanker task to examine the EF of shooting athletes. Participants were assigned into the novice group, expert group, or control group, based on the level of training and competition experience. Reaction time (RT) and accuracy of performance across the three groups were compared.
resultsFor the simple task, the control group showed a longer RT than the novice group, for all three inter-stimulus interval (ISI) conditions. Significant differences between the control and the expert groups were observed only at 300-ms and 400-ms ISIs. For the complex task, the control group exhibited a higher RT than the novice and expert groups at the 300- and 400-ms ISIs.
conclusionsThe self-control during performing closed motor skills in the environment determines that shooters have proficient anti-interference ability. This ability is uncorrelated with task type, but most likely is affected by reserved task response time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.