ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of visual search features in expert versus novice collegiate females during basketball decision making.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
Abstract
This study employs the expert-novice paradigm to examine the visual search characteristics of expert players through basketball-specific decision-making tasks. A total of 48 female college students (24 basketball players and 24 regular college students) were selected as participants. First person video stimuli were used to explore the behavioral indicators and eye movement characteristics of professional basketball players in sports decision-making tasks using the eye tracker. (1) Compared with novice players, expert players demonstrated significantly shorter reaction times, higher decision accuracy, and greater decision-making confidence in the task. (2) Expert players exhibited shorter fixation durations and fewer fixation counts. There was a significant difference in fixation duration and frequency between novice and expert players in the relevant and irrelevant areas of interest, with the expert group showing longer fixation durations and higher fixation frequencies in the relevant areas of interest. The scanning trajectory of the expert group was simpler and more centralized. Expert players demonstrate faster reactions and higher accuracy in sport-related decision-making tasks, exhibiting visual search advantages, shorter fixation durations, fewer fixation counts, and more focused attention allocation in relevant areas of interest.
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.