ArticleScientific reports2021
Optimal methods for estimating sports vision in kendo athletes.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of military-specific reaction time performance with physical fitness and visual skills.PeerJ · 2022Article
- Sports and Kinetic Visual Acuity.Juntendo Iji zasshi = Juntendo medical journal · 2022Review
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
This study investigated whether the eight standard tests of sports vision used in Japan appropriately reflect sports vision; whether all eight tests are necessary; and if not, which combination yields the optimal model. Participants were kendo practitioners (exercise group, n = 41) and those with no exercise habits (non-exercise group, n = 65). The performance of the two groups on all eight tests were compared. The groups differed in static visual acuity, kinetic visual acuity, and eye/hand coordination. A high correlation (r = 0.75) was observed between static visual acuity and kinetic visual acuity, while contrast sensitivity was moderately correlated with static visual acuity and kinetic visual acuity (r = 0.6), and dynamic visual acuity was moderately correlated with eye/hand coordination (r = - 0.66). Logistic regression analysis indicated that it is not necessary to conduct all eight tests; the optimal model included static visual acuity, visual reaction time, and eye/hand coordination. Our results suggest that static visual acuity, visual reaction time, and eye/hand coordination are sufficient for assessing visual function in kendo practitioners. For other sports, it may be possible to construct discriminative models using the same method and determine which aspects of visual function and which training methods to emphasise in a given sport.
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.