ArticlePeerJ2022
Study on eye movement characteristics and intervention of basketball shooting skill.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- A portable solution for simultaneous human movement and mobile EEG acquisition: readiness potential for basketball free-throw shooting.Experimental brain research · 2026Article
- Comparison of visual search features in expert versus novice collegiate females during basketball decision making.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The shooting aiming point is very important in basketball because it may affect the field goal percentage (FG%). The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of shooting aiming point practice on FG% and to search for new training methods for shooting improvement in basketball. Methods: A total of 24 expert basketball players and 24 amateur basketball players participated in the shooting task of Experiment 1. The participants in the two groups wore an eye movement instrument while shooting the ball. The shooting techniques included free throws, 45° direct shots and 45° bank shots to verify the differences in shooting aiming points between expert basketball players and amateur basketball players. Forty-eight amateur basketball players participated in the teaching experiment of Experiment 2. Twenty-four participants participated in routine teaching, and 24 participants had shooting aiming point practice for nine weeks to verify the difference in FG% between the two groups. The shooting aiming points of the participants were assessed immediately after shooting. Results: Experiment 1 found that expert basketball players used shorter fixation duration, fewer fixation numbers and more reasonable (simple and efficient) fixation distributions than amateur players. Moreover, expert basketball players took the front edge of the hoop as the aiming point, and amateur players took the central or back edge of the hoop as the aiming point; the FG% of the expert group (83.47%) was significantly higher than that of the amateur group (34.86%) ( Conclusion: (1) There was a correlation between basketball shooting aiming point and FG%. FG% with the front edge of the hoop as the aiming point was higher than the back edge hoop or center. (2) The FG% could be more quickly improved by shooting aiming point practice; it will not be affected in a short time (5 weeks); however, 9 weeks of practice can significantly improve the FG%.
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.