ReviewFrontiers in physiology2025
Does the "learning effect" caused by digital devices exaggerate sports visual training outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Digital-based visual training (VT) is widely employed to improve visual-cognitive performance, yet its efficacy may be confounded by the "learning effect". Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Library, covering all studies published up to 8 May 2025. The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles written in English. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included both baseline and post-intervention measures of visual-cognitive performance were eligible. Subgroup analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of task similarity between training and testing conditions, to assess potential bias introduced by the "learning effect". Results: The search identified 3,798 articles, of which 33 RCTs involving 1,048 participants met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. VT was found to significantly improve visual attention, reaction time, decision-making time, decision-making accuracy, and eye-hand coordination. Subgroup analyses revealed that studies classified as "learning effect present" (LE+) consistently reported substantially larger effect sizes than those without (LE-). Significant between-group differences were observed for visual attention (SMD = 1.65 vs. 0.07; Conclusion: These findings indicate that observed improvements may reflect task familiarity rather than true cognitive enhancement. To improve evaluation validity, future studies should avoid task redundancy, incorporate retention testing, and adopt structurally distinct outcome measures.
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.