Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40408348›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Visual attention and response time to distinguish athletes from non-athletes: A virtual reality study.

Lucia Imperiali, Stefano Borghi, Sara Bizzozero, Elena Prandoni, Ambra Bisio, Antonio La Torre, Roberto Codella

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Visio-spatial intelligence in athletes: comparison of field hockey players and non-athletes.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Lucia ImperialiIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Stefano BorghiIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2435-3412
Sara BizzozeroIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Elena PrandoniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Ambra BisioCentro Polifunzionale di Scienze Motorie, Università degli Studi di Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Antonio La TorreDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4987-2024
Roberto CodellaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1608-1899

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, cutting-edge technologies have been increasingly integrated into sports to assess physical and cognitive capacities. Virtual Reality (VR) technology has emerged as a powerful tool, offering an immersive and controlled scenario for examining cognitive functions. In light of the growing adoption of VR-systems, this study aimed to investigate the differences in visual attention and response time (RT) between athletes and non-athletes utilizing a VR-system and evaluate the discriminatory power of VR assessments towards the two groups. Sixty-one participants (Age: 22 ± 1.8years; athletes = 33, non-athletes = 28) underwent two visual attention evaluations through the Multiple Object Tracking (MOT) paradigm and three RT evaluations, all within a fully immersive VR environment. The visual attention assessments included the "MOT Assessment" (MOT), which did not have a primary target to select, and the "MOT, Primary Target Onset" (MOT-PT), which required selecting a primary target. The three RT evaluations included Continuous RT (RT-C), RT with Inter-Time between stimuli (RT-I), and Go No-Go RT (RT-GNG). In all RT assessments, participants aimed to touch the target that turned green in the shortest time as possible. In the RT-GNG test, participants responded to green targets by touching them with the hand controllers and refrained from touching red targets. No differences were found between athletes and non-athletes in visual attention tasks. However, athletes outperformed non-athletes in RT assessments (RT-C: 504.8 ± 45.9ms vs. 549.1 ± 45.6ms; p < 0.001. RT-I: 481.1 ± 44.9ms vs. 534.2 ± 58.6ms; p < 0.001. RT-GNG: 502.9 ± 38.8ms vs. 555.6 ± 57.8ms; p < 0.001). ROC curve analysis demonstrated moderate accuracy in differentiating athletes from non-athletes in RT assessments (RT-C: AUC = 0.75, p < 0.001; RT-I: AUC = 0.75, p < 0.001; RT-GNG: AUC = 0.80, p < 0.001). These findings underscore the significant role of RT in distinguishing athletes from non-athletes and highlight the discriminative potential of VR-systems as valuable tools in sports evaluation. Including RT assessments into traditional training regimens could offer new insights for evaluating athletic performance.

Indexed as

AthletesAttentionReaction TimeVirtual RealityVisual PerceptionAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40408348
PMCPMC12101641

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.