Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33983977›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Effects of decision-making on indoor bouldering performances: A multi-experimental study approach.

Jerry Prosper Medernach, Daniel Memmert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jerry Prosper MedernachInstitute of Exercise Training and Sports Informatics, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1873-2704
Daniel MemmertInstitute of Exercise Training and Sports Informatics, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether novice, intermediate, and advanced bouldering athletes would differ in their decision-making abilities and to what extent distinct problem-solving tactics would affect the athletes' bouldering performances. Seventy-seven male bouldering athletes participated in a multi-experimental study with the conceptual replication of three bouldering tasks. Participants were allocated according to their ability levels to the novice group (NOV with n = 18), the intermediate group (INT with n = 18), or the advanced group (ADV with n = 41). The data collected for movement analysis via video consisted of the pre-ascent decision-making times, the number of movement deviations from the best solution, the number of movement mistakes, the average gripping times, the bouldering times to the top, the number of successful ascents, and the number of attempts to complete the tasks. Results among all three experiments revealed shorter decision-making times, fewer movement mistakes, and shorter average gripping and bouldering times to the top in the ADV group than in the NOV group and the INT group. Furthermore, participants from the ADV group demonstrated fewer movement deviations than participants from the NOV group (in all three experiments) and the INT group (Experiment 1 and Experiment 2). Moreover, participants from the ADV group and the INT group were characterized, in all three experiments, by a higher number of successful ascents and a lower number of attempts to complete the tasks than participants from the NOV group. In total, these findings emphasize that accomplished decision-making abilities consist of a key determinant in successful indoor bouldering performances.

Indexed as

Athletic PerformanceDecision MakingAdultAthletesHumansMaleMovementProblem SolvingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33983977
PMCPMC8118292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.