ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Collegiate badminton expertise is associated with interference-control and response-inhibition task performance: a cross-sectional expert-novice 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Badminton places repeated demands on selecting task-relevant cues while withholding prepared actions, yet evidence for domain-general inhibitory-control differences associated with sport expertise remains mixed. This study examined whether collegiate badminton expertise was associated with performance on two non-sport-specific tasks assessing interference control and response inhibition. Methods: Sixty-eight right-handed university students (33 badminton experts and 35 novices) completed a color-word Stroop task followed by a Go/NoGo task. The primary Stroop outcome was the participant-level interference cost, calculated as incongruent minus congruent reaction time. Go/NoGo performance was characterized by hit rate, false-alarm rate, and a trial-level logistic mixed-effects model of NoGo errors. Corrected d' was treated as a secondary measure because of ceiling and floor constraints. Results: Experts showed a smaller Stroop interference cost than novices after reaction-time cleaning (13.6 vs. 44.6 ms; novice-expert difference = 31.0 ms, 95% CI [25.2, 37.3], Discussion: Collegiate badminton expertise was associated with better performance on both interference-control and response-inhibition tasks, suggesting that expertise-related differences may extend beyond badminton-specific perceptual and motor contexts. However, these associations should be interpreted as task- and sample-specific rather than as evidence of a unitary inhibitory-control advantage. Because the study was cross-sectional and lacked both an active-athlete control group and a pure processing-speed baseline, the findings do not establish whether the observed differences resulted from badminton training or pre-existing individual characteristics.
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.