SynthesisBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Effects of stroboscopic visual training on sport performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis with exploratory exposure-response modelling.
Synthesis in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroboscopic visual training (SVT) intermittently occludes vision during skill execution to increase perceptual‑cognitive demand and improve information pickup. Evidence in sport is heterogeneous, and key exposure parameters are inconsistently reported; therefore, we quantified SVT effects and explored whether a duty‑cycle‑adjusted exposure metric relates to performance change.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to 19 August 2025 for controlled studies comparing SVT with non‑stroboscopic controls in athletes or physically active participants. Outcomes were grouped as perceptual‑cognitive, visuomotor reaction time, motor speed/reactive agility, or visual tracking. Random-effects meta-analysis (REML) computed pooled Hedges' g. Because some studies contributed more than one comparison-level effect size, a multilevel random-effects model with comparisons nested within studies was fitted as a robustness check, and variance partitioning was used to describe the relative contribution of within-study versus between-study heterogeneity. Analyses were stratified by exposure timescale (acute single‑session vs multi‑session programmes). Exposure-response modelling used occlusion‑minutes (training minutes × opaque duty‑cycle fraction) when dose data were available.
resultsSeventeen studies (513 participants; 22 comparison-level effect sizes) were included. Overall, SVT improved sport-related outcomes (g = 0.79, 95% CI 0.39-1.19; I
conclusionsSVT shows a moderate-to-large average benefit across heterogeneous designs, driven primarily by multi-session programmes. Evidence is stronger for near-to-intermediate transfer outcomes than for acute effects or far transfer to representative sport performance. Current data are insufficient to define an optimal SVT dose based on occlusion-minutes alone. Future trials should standardise device reporting, use conceptually grounded transfer outcomes, and include delayed follow-up assessments.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420251090541.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42482246What 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.