ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Visual search behavior and decision-making in expert and less-experienced football referees across different foul situations: an eye-tracking study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Modern football imposes considerable demands on referees' rapid foul judgements, yet the dissociation between accuracy and efficiency of officiating expertise across different foul situations remains poorly characterized. Methods: The present study compared 15 national-level and 15 Class-3 male football referees in three typical situations: ball-contesting, tactical foul and handball. Participants viewed 30 real-match video clips and made one technical and one disciplinary decision per clip while an EyeLink 1000 Plus eye tracker recorded global eye-movement indices and area-of-interest (AOI) measures. Data were analyzed with 2 (group) × 3 (situation) mixed-design ANOVAs and independent-samples Results: Decision accuracy did not differ between groups for either technical or disciplinary judgements, although a robust situation main effect was observed [technical accuracy Discussion: Within this video-based task, expertise-related differences emerged primarily in efficiency-related indices rather than overall accuracy; sample size, the simulated nature of the stimuli and ceiling-or-near-chance effects in some conditions limit generalization, and the findings warrant validation in real-match settings.
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.