Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36578693›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Effect of different sport environments on proactive and reactive motor inhibition: A study on open- and closed-skilled athletes

Riccardo Bravi, Gioele Gavazzi, Viola Benedetti, Fabio Giovannelli, Stefano Grasso, Giulia Panconi, Maria Pia Viggiano, Diego Minciacchi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Riccardo BraviDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Gioele GavazziDepartment of Neuroscience, Psychology, Drug Research and Child's Health (NEUROFARBA), University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Viola BenedettiDepartment of Neuroscience, Psychology, Drug Research and Child's Health (NEUROFARBA), University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Fabio GiovannelliDepartment of Neuroscience, Psychology, Drug Research and Child's Health (NEUROFARBA), University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Stefano GrassoDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology "Vittorio Erspamer", SAPIENZA University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Giulia PanconiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Maria Pia ViggianoDepartment of Neuroscience, Psychology, Drug Research and Child's Health (NEUROFARBA), University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Diego MinciacchiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
University of Florence · ITSapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effect of different sport environments (open-and closed-skill sports) on proactive and reactive inhibitory processes as two distinct components of motor inhibition. A mouse-tracking procedure was employed to compare behavioral performance among three groups of participants (tennis players, swimmers and non-athletes) in non-sport-specific cued Go/No-Go (GNG) and Stop Signal Task (SST), which mainly engage proactive and reactive inhibitory control, respectively. Reaction times (RTs), inhibitory failures, and Stop Signal Reaction Times (SSRTs) were measured. To investigate dynamic aspects of inhibitory control, movement trajectories classified as one-shot (absence of trajectory alteration reflected in a steep slope) or non-one-shot (non-linear/multipeaked trajectory, with one or multiple corrections) were analyzed and compared among groups. Results showed no group differences in RTs in Go/No-Go and Stop conditions. SSRTs were significant shorter for the athletes than non-athletes in SST, but no differences emerged for inhibitory failures in cued GNG. During inhibitory failures athletes showed higher proportion of non-one-shot movements than non-athletes. Higher proportion of non-one-shot profiles was observed in cued GNG compared to SST. Finally, no differences between open-and closed-skilled athletes were found in both tasks. Our findings suggest that both proactive and reactive inhibitory controls do benefit from sport practice, but open-and closed-skill sports do not differ in influencing inhibitory processes. Movement profile analysis could be a promising, complementary behavioral analysis to integrate for more fine-grained evaluation and differentiation of inhibitory motor control in athletes, specifically when using GNG tasks.

Indexed as

motor controlmotor inhibitionmouse trackingmovement profilesopen- and closed-skilled athletesopen- and closed-skill sportsproactive and reactive inhibitory controlsport training

Identifiers

PMID36578693
PMCPMC9791124
OpenAlexW4312123455

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.