ArticleScientific reports2025
Superior monocular visual function but compromised binocular balance in precision shooters compared to age and refraction matched controls.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Shooting sports demand exceptional visual performance, yet detailed assessments of visual function in precision shooters remain limited. This cross-sectional study evaluated 28 pistol and rifle shooters and 20 age- and refractive-error-matched non-athletic controls. Participants underwent comprehensive visual assessments, including tests of visual acuity (VA), Vernier acuity, contrast sensitivity, binocular vision, accommodation, ocular biometry, perimetry, and eye movement tracking. A subgroup of national-level athletes was also analyzed. Compared to controls, shooters demonstrated superior near VA (-0.08 ± 0.06 vs. 0.03 ± 0.07 logMAR; p = 0.003), binocular Vernier acuity (5.4 ± 3.2 vs. 8.7 ± 5.1 arcsec; p = 0.032), and dominant eye contrast sensitivity (p = 0.005). National-level shooters showed fewer gaze shifts (p = 0.044), more stable fixation, and better stereoacuity (25 vs. 35 arcsec; p = 0.005). Modality-specific differences were observed: pistol shooters exhibited better distance acuity and central field sensitivity, while rifle shooters-despite being older-performed better in near VA. However, covering one eye to avoid diplopia, which is inherent in precision shooting, may cause suppression of the covered eye when performed frequently and for prolonged periods. This ultimately may explain why shooting experience correlates with reduced binocular balance and a worse near point of convergence (r = 0.335, p = 0.020). These findings suggest that visual expertise in precision shooting is linked to task-specific visual adaptations. Tailored visual training programs may enhance performance and mitigate training-induced imbalances.
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.