ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
A comparative study on executive function of adolescent athletes in different winter sports.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the differential characteristics of executive function among adolescent athletes in three winter sports (ice hockey, figure skating, and speed skating), and to analyze the correlation between training experience and each subcomponent of executive function.
methodsA convenience sampling method was adopted to select 199 adolescent winter sport athletes in Chengdu, Sichuan Province as participants (92 ice hockey athletes, 39 figure skating athletes, and 68 speed skating athletes). The Flanker task, 2-back task, and More-odd shifting task were used to assess the athletes' inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility, respectively. One-way ANOVA, generalized linear model (control variables included age, gender, training experience, body mass index, family economic status and negative emotions) and partial Pearson correlation analysis were used for data analysis.
resultsIce hockey athletes exhibited significantly shorter response times than speed skating athletes under both congruent (β = -90.03, P = 0.012) and incongruent conditions (β = -83.38, P = 0.010). Figure skating athletes had significantly lower accuracy than speed skating athletes under the congruent condition (β = -7.60, P = 0.011), and their accuracy was also lower than that of ice hockey athletes (P = 0.021). The accuracy of both ice hockey (β = 5.75, P = 0.018) and figure skating athletes (β = 7.57, P = 0.009) was significantly higher than that of speed skating athletes. Figure skating athletes showed significantly better performance in response time than speed skating athletes under the size shifting (β = -148.01, P < 0.001) and parity shifting conditions (β = -111.49, P = 0.011), and their response time under the size shifting condition was shorter than that of ice hockey athletes (P = 0.036). Ice hockey athletes had a significantly shorter response time than speed skating athletes under the size-parity shifting condition (β = -170.49, P = 0.004). In addition, no significant correlation was found between training years and executive function (P > 0.05).
conclusionsThere were significant sport-specific differences in the executive function performance of adolescent athletes in different winter sports. This study can provide preliminary reference evidence and testable research hypotheses for subsequent research on specialized training optimization, cognitive intervention development and athletic talent identification among adolescent winter sport athletes.
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.