SynthesisScientific reports2024
A meta-analysis of performance advantages on athletes in multiple object tracking tasks.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Executive Function Strengths in Athletes: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative Analysis of Visio-Spatial Skills Profiles in Boxing, Karate, and Taekwondo Athletes.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- Performance of clay pigeon shooters in multiple object tracking under different target loads: skill level and gender differences.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Visio-spatial intelligence in athletes: comparison of field hockey players and non-athletes.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026Article
- Cognitive-motor dual-task training differentially affects visual working memory, multifocal attention, and multisensory integration in youth soccer players.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- When suppressor effects may reflect multicollinearity artifacts: a cautionary tale from multiple object tracking and clay pigeon shooting performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Binocular vs. monocular 3D cues in multiple object tracking: expertise differences between soccer players and non-athletes.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Persistent cognitive deficits in ACL-injured athletes despite of rehabilitation: an observational longitudinal study.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Visual attention and response time to distinguish athletes from non-athletes: A virtual reality study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Cognitive costs in motor-cognitive performance assessments depend on movement complexity and cognitive task design.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study compared the multiple object tracking (MOT) performance of athletes vs. non-athletes and expert athletes vs. novice athletes by systematically reviewing and meta-analyzing the literature. A systematic literature search was conducted using five databases for articles published until July 2024. Healthy people were included, specifically classified as athletes and non-athletes, or experts and novices. Potential sources of heterogeneity were selected using a random-effects model. Moderator analyses were also performed. A total of 23 studies were included in this review. Regarding the overall effect, athletes were significantly better at MOT tasks than non-athletes, and experts performed better than novices. Subgroup analyses showed that expert athletes had a significantly larger effect than novices, and that the type of sport significantly moderated the difference in MOT performance between the two groups. Meta-regression revealed that the number of targets and duration of tracking moderated the differences in performance between experts and novices, but did not affect the differences between athletes and non-athletes. This meta-analysis provides evidence of performance advantages for athletes compared with nonathletes, and experts compared with novices in MOT tasks. Moreover, the two effects were moderated by different factors; therefore, future studies should classify participants more specifically according to sports levels.
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.