SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Differences in visual search behavior between expert and novice individual sports athletes: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined expert-novice differences in visual search behaviour in individual-sport athletes, addressing a gap in a literature that has focused primarily on team sports. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched EBSCO, PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases up to November 1, 2025, identifying 26 eligible studies (total N = 611 athletes). Key outcomes included chronological age, years of practice, number of fixations, fixation duration, number of fixation locations, fixation positions, and quiet eye duration. Meta-analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) with random-effects models in Review Manager 5.4. Experts had significantly more years of practice than novices (SMD = 3.45, 95% CI 1.82-5.08, p < 0.0001; very large effect).Compared with novices, experts showed fewer fixations (SMD = -1.52, 95% CI -2.38 to -0.65, p = 0.0006; very large effect), longer fixation durations (SMD = 0.93, 95% CI 0.44-1.41, p = 0.0002; large effect), and fewer distinct fixation locations (SMD = -1.27, 95% CI -2.26 to -0.28, p = 0.01; very large effect).Subgroup analyses by sport type showed no significant moderating effects. Visual search strategies are highly task-specific. Combat experts prioritize central body regions to optimize peripheral vision, whereas badminton and tennis experts focus on distal cues (e.g., arm and racket) and kinematic information (e.g., trunk and hips), respectively. These variations reflect selective processing of key perceptual cues under unique sporting constraints. Risk of bias, assessed using RoBANS, indicated moderate concerns in confounding variables. Overall, these findings suggest that experts employ more efficient visual search strategies, supporting the development of perceptual-cognitive training interventions in individual sports. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261280358, identifier CRD420261280358.
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.