ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Badminton expertise shapes cue extraction and evidence accumulation during perceptual prediction.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Badminton Players' Expert Advantage in Anticipation Based on Visual and Auditory Cues: Evidence from the Drift Diffusion Model.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- EEG coherence signatures of sport-specific motor imagery in elite freestyle skiing aerials athletes.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to investigate the impact of badminton-specific experience on the mechanisms of cue extraction and processing during perceptual prediction from a computational modeling perspective. Methods: Thirty-six participants (18 experts and 18 novices) were recruited for the experiment. Utilizing a temporal occlusion paradigm, three cue stages were established: 40 milliseconds before racket-shuttlecock contact (T1), at contact (T2), and 40 milliseconds after contact (T3). Participants were tasked with predicting the landing location of the shuttlecock. The study not only recorded behavioral metrics (accuracy and reaction time) but also employed the Drift Diffusion Model (DDM) to jointly model the behavioral data, extracting three latent processing parameters: drift rate, decision threshold, and non-decision time. Results: Accuracy analysis revealed significant main effects for cue stage and group, alongside a significant interaction. Simple main effect analysis between groups indicated that experts' accuracy at T1 and T2 was significantly higher than that of novices, whereas the difference was non-significant at T3. Reaction time analysis also showed significant main effects for cue stage and group, alongside a significant interaction; experts exhibited significantly shorter reaction times than novices across all three time points. DDM results demonstrated that experts had a significantly higher drift rate than novices at T1 and T2, while this inter-group difference disappeared at T3. As information increased, experts showed a more pronounced upregulation in the decision threshold at T3, whereas novices exhibited greater threshold fluctuations. Non-decision time was consistently shorter for experts across all stages. Conclusion: The optimization of perceptual prediction mechanisms driven by badminton-specific experience exhibits stage specificity. The expert advantage is primarily concentrated in the early processing of kinematic cues when information is incomplete, manifesting as a higher rate of evidence accumulation. In stages with more abundant information, experts maintain output stability through an optimized dynamic speed-accuracy tradeoff (threshold upregulation) and retain shorter non-decision times across all stages. This suggests that long-term training facilitates the automated synergy of stimulus encoding and motor preparation.
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.