ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Visual Perception in Expert Athletes: The Case of Rock Climbers.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Embodied planning in climbing: how pre-planning informs motor execution.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Strobe training as a visual training method that improves performance in climbing.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Transfer Effect of Cognitive Advantages in Visual Working Memory Capacity: Evidence from Elite Football Players.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the visual perception system in expert climbers through a psychophysical optical test in a cross-sectional study. Twenty-seven male participants with an International Rock Climbing Research Association (IRCRA) best on-sight lead skill level ranging between 18 and 27 and a best red-point level ranging between 18 and 29 completed a series of psychophysical optic tests assessing their visual field, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity. Climbers were divided by their best red-pointed lead level, and, following IRCRA recommendations, two groups were created: an advanced group (IRCRA redpoint level between 18 and 23), and an elite-high elite group (IRCRA redpoint level between 24 and 29). The elite group presented more training days per week (5.25 ± 1.28), best on-sighted lead level (24.63 ± 1.92 IRCRA), and best red-pointed lead level (26.63 ± 2.56 IRCRA) than the advanced group (3.67 ± 0.91 training days per week, 19.50 ± 1.04 IRCRA on-sighted level and 20.67 ± 1.57 IRCRA red-pointed level). Better visual perception outputs were produced by the group of elite climbers in visual field tests; no differences were observed between the two groups for visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests. Overall, findings indicate that best climbers performed better at the visual perception tasks that tested their visual field. Such better perception from best climbers is discussed given (1) the greater time they spend coercing the visual system during practicing climbing and (2) the specific complexity of the stimuli as they are confronted to harder routes where holds are less perceptible and the time to find best hold sequences is constrained.
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.