Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41078877›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025

Decision-making process in game sports: what do top-level players think of current research?

Lukas Magnaguagno, Damian Beck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Lukas MagnaguagnoInstitute of Sport Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Damian BeckInstitute of Sport Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Excellent performance in game sports is largely determined by a functional decision-making process which integrates different perceptual-cognitive skills. This paper aims to bridge empirical and practical knowledge by exploring top-level players' subjective experiences in decision making. Methods: A semi-structured interview guide was developed and informed by existing decision-making literature including three categories (i.e., gaze behavior, information integration, and decision determinants). Each Switzerland's most successful male and female player from five different game sports (i.e., beach volleyball, floorball, handball, ice hockey, and soccer) participated in single interviews, focusing different aspects within each of the three categories. Verbal data were analyzed using a deductive thematic analysis after which top-level players' perspective was compared against the selected theoretical concepts and empirical findings. Results: The data analysis showed that top-level players use gaze anchor and foveal spot for peripheral vision, anticipate based on a weighted combination of kinematic and different contextual information, and decide predominantly intuitively by applying if-then automatism. Discussion: The present findings reflect well-examined factors of the decision-making process and uncover specifics relevant to top-level players but underrepresented in the literature such as decisional relevance when using peripheral vision, or tactical strategies influencing decisions. Therefore, our results provide player-perspective information underlying the decision-making process in complex game situations as well as valuable recommendations for applied practices.

Indexed as

decision determinantsdeductive thematic analysisexpert performancegaze behaviorinformation integration

Identifiers

PMID41078877
PMCPMC12512046

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.