ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Differences in Visuospatial Expertise between Skeet Shooting Athletes and Non-Athletes.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of clay pigeon shooters in multiple object tracking under different target loads: skill level and gender differences.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Visual search characteristics in two-way skeet shooters of different performance levels during simulated target viewing.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Superior monocular visual function but compromised binocular balance in precision shooters compared to age and refraction matched controls.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Exploring the relationship between motor visual proficiency and performance metrics in elite skeet shooters: An in-depth analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Visio-spatial intelligence skills in non-athletes versus amateur boxers.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2024Article
- Comparison of Visual Skills between Federated and Non-Federated Athletes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSports vision is a specialisation of optometry whose objective is to improve and preserve visual function to increase sports performance. The main objective of the present study was to compare the visual expertise of non-athletes to skeet shooting athletes.
methodsParticipants underwent an optometric assessment in which all those with severe deviations from normal vision, after compensating for visual abnormalities, were eliminated. After that, the following six visuospatial components were measured: hand-eye coordination, peripheral awareness, fixation disparity, saccadic eye movements, speed of recognition and visual memory. To measure the aforementioned components, the following tests were used: directional arrows, similar and different characters, the dichromatic disparity test, character marking, a tachistoscopic test and tic-tac-toe using COI-vision software.
resultsSkeet shooting athletes performed significatively better (
conclusionsAlthough this study does not support the theory that athletes-in this case, skeet shooting athletes-perform significantly better in most components of the visuospatial tests, visual memory and hand-eye coordination are exceptions. To be more accurate in distinguishing between athletes and non-athletes, specific testing methods that can be used by a wide variety of disciplines should be developed. Training the weakest aspects of athletes can improve their sports performance.
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.