Mélissa Vona , Élaine de Guise , Suzanne Leclerc , Johnathan Deslauriers , Thomas Romeas
{"title":"Multiple domain-general assessments of cognitive functions in elite athletes: Contrasting evidence for the influence of expertise, sport type and sex","authors":"Mélissa Vona , Élaine de Guise , Suzanne Leclerc , Johnathan Deslauriers , Thomas Romeas","doi":"10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Converging evidence has shown that domain-general cognitive abilities, especially executive functions (EF), tend to be superior in sport experts. However, recent studies have questioned this cognitive advantage and found inconsistent findings when comparing sport type and sex. This study aimed to compare the impact of sport expertise, sport type, and sex on various domains of cognitive functions.</p><p>Two hundred and thirty elite athletes (<em>n</em><sub>Female</sub> = 124, <em>n</em><sub>Male</sub> = 106) representing three sport categories (Team [<em>n</em> = 91], Precision-skill dependent [<em>n</em> = 63], and Speed-strength [<em>n</em> = 76] sports) were assessed using a computerized neuropsychological test battery including tests of EF (working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility and planning), as well as tests of selective and sustained attention. T-scores and raw values were used to analyze performance through t-tests and ANCOVA with age as covariate.</p><p>Athletes demonstrated better performance than the normative mean on 5 out of 11 cognitive test variables (p < 0.005). However, their performance fell within the average range when considering the results along a normative scale, except for sustained attention and working memory where they performed just above average (<1 SD). There was a significant main effect of sport category on only one EF variable (p = 0.003). Males performed significantly faster than females on motor reaction time measures of attention and inhibition (all p < 0.001).</p><p>In this study, the ‘expert advantage’ on domain-general cognitive tests was less prominent when utilizing a normative scale and controlling for age or speed-accuracy trade-offs, except for sustained attention and working-memory. Cognitive functions did not appear to differ meaningfully based on athletes’ sport type or sex.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54536,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Sport and Exercise","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 102715"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1469029224001262/pdfft?md5=c1452567da10a4ac040bed5e0766dd13&pid=1-s2.0-S1469029224001262-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Sport and Exercise","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1469029224001262","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Converging evidence has shown that domain-general cognitive abilities, especially executive functions (EF), tend to be superior in sport experts. However, recent studies have questioned this cognitive advantage and found inconsistent findings when comparing sport type and sex. This study aimed to compare the impact of sport expertise, sport type, and sex on various domains of cognitive functions.
Two hundred and thirty elite athletes (nFemale = 124, nMale = 106) representing three sport categories (Team [n = 91], Precision-skill dependent [n = 63], and Speed-strength [n = 76] sports) were assessed using a computerized neuropsychological test battery including tests of EF (working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility and planning), as well as tests of selective and sustained attention. T-scores and raw values were used to analyze performance through t-tests and ANCOVA with age as covariate.
Athletes demonstrated better performance than the normative mean on 5 out of 11 cognitive test variables (p < 0.005). However, their performance fell within the average range when considering the results along a normative scale, except for sustained attention and working memory where they performed just above average (<1 SD). There was a significant main effect of sport category on only one EF variable (p = 0.003). Males performed significantly faster than females on motor reaction time measures of attention and inhibition (all p < 0.001).
In this study, the ‘expert advantage’ on domain-general cognitive tests was less prominent when utilizing a normative scale and controlling for age or speed-accuracy trade-offs, except for sustained attention and working-memory. Cognitive functions did not appear to differ meaningfully based on athletes’ sport type or sex.
越来越多的证据表明，体育专家的领域一般认知能力，尤其是执行功能（EF），往往更胜一筹。然而，最近的研究对这种认知优势提出了质疑，并且在比较运动类型和性别时发现了不一致的结论。本研究旨在比较运动专长、运动类型和性别对认知功能各领域的影响。研究人员使用计算机化的神经心理学测试套件（包括EF测试（工作记忆、抑制、认知灵活性和计划性）以及选择性和持续注意力测试）对代表三个运动类别（团队运动[n=91]、精确-技能依赖运动[n=63]和速度-力量运动[n=76]）的230名精英运动员（n女性=124，n男性=106）进行了评估。通过 t 检验和方差分析（以年龄作为协变量），使用 T 分数和原始值对成绩进行分析。在 11 个认知测试变量中，运动员在 5 个变量上的表现优于常模平均值（p
期刊介绍：
Psychology of Sport and Exercise is an international forum for scholarly reports in the psychology of sport and exercise, broadly defined. The journal is open to the use of diverse methodological approaches. Manuscripts that will be considered for publication will present results from high quality empirical research, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, commentaries concerning already published PSE papers or topics of general interest for PSE readers, protocol papers for trials, and reports of professional practice (which will need to demonstrate academic rigour and go beyond mere description). The CONSORT guidelines consort-statement need to be followed for protocol papers for trials; authors should present a flow diagramme and attach with their cover letter the CONSORT checklist. For meta-analysis, the PRISMA prisma-statement guidelines should be followed; authors should present a flow diagramme and attach with their cover letter the PRISMA checklist. For systematic reviews it is recommended that the PRISMA guidelines are followed, although it is not compulsory. Authors interested in submitting replications of published studies need to contact the Editors-in-Chief before they start their replication. We are not interested in manuscripts that aim to test the psychometric properties of an existing scale from English to another language, unless new validation methods are used which address previously unanswered research questions.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
