ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Cognitive processing characteristics of the advantage of assistant referee offside decision-making: evidence from eye movements and ERPs.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Offside decision-making in football is prone to misjudgments that significantly affect match outcomes. Although video assistant referee (VAR) technology has been introduced, it may cause game interruptions and is subject to technical limitations; thus, improving assistant referees' on-field judgment is crucial. Previous studies have focused on behavioral differences in refereeing decisions, but the cognitive processing characteristics and neural mechanisms underlying the decision-making advantage of expert assistant referees remain unclear. Methods: A total of 26 assistant referees were divided into an expert group (level 1 and above, with over 6 years of experience) and a novice group (level 3 and below). A mixed 2 × 2 factorial design (referee level: expert/novice; stimulus type: offside/non-offside images) was used. The stimuli were derived from 2014 World Cup match footage, comprising 25 offside and 75 non-offside images. Eye-tracking technology and a 64-channel event-related potential (ERP) system were used to record behavioral indicators (reaction time and accuracy), eye-movement indicators (number of fixation points, average fixation duration, and gaze trajectory), and ERP components (N2, P300, late slow wave, and PSW) during the decision-making process. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA. Results: (1) Behavioral data: Expert referees responded faster than novices. In offside images, their RT was 2,408.92 ± 276.03 ms. Their accuracy was also higher (0.79 ± 0.10 vs. 0.71 ± 0.13). (2) Eye movement data: Experts made fewer fixations within the region of interest than novices (5.62 ± 1.36 vs. 7.05 ± 1.78). Their average fixation duration was also shorter (220.59 ± 45.69 ms vs. 340.61 ± 118.03 ms). Their attention was primarily focused on the offside line. (3) ERP data: The ERP results were preliminary. Experts showed shorter N2/P300 latencies and lower P300 amplitude. This may indicate faster stimulus evaluation and less additional allocation of cognitive resources. These results should be interpreted cautiously because participant-level artifact-free trial counts could not be reconstructed. Conclusion: Expert assistant referees showed an advantage in offside decisions. This advantage may be related to a refined visuospatial working memory system. This system enables them to deploy attention quickly, search for key visual cues, and process information efficiently. Behavioral and eye-movement results, together with preliminary ERP evidence, support this interpretation. The findings may provide theoretical support for referee training programs. However, the ERP results should be treated as preliminary because artifact-free trial counts could not be reconstructed.
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.