Nicholas P Murray, Melissa Hunfalvay, Christopher Mesagno, Brittany Trotter, Eva V Monsma, Ethan Greenstein, Frederick Robert Carrick
{"title":"Eye Movement Differences in Contact Versus Non-Contact Olympic Athletes.","authors":"Nicholas P Murray, Melissa Hunfalvay, Christopher Mesagno, Brittany Trotter, Eva V Monsma, Ethan Greenstein, Frederick Robert Carrick","doi":"10.1080/00222895.2024.2388769","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in oculomotor functioning between Olympic-level contact and non-contact sports participants. In total, 67 male and female Olympic-level contact (<i>n</i> = 27) and non-contact (<i>n</i> = 40) athletes completed oculomotor tasks, including Horizontal Saccade (HS), Circular Smooth Pursuit (CSP), Horizontal Smooth Pursuit (HSP), and Vertical Smooth Pursuit (VSP) using a remote eye tracker. No significant differences for sex or age occurred. Each variable indicated higher scores for contact compared to non-contact athletes (<i>p</i> < .05) except for VSP Pathway differences and CSP Synchronization. A logistic regression was performed to determine the degree that HS measures, CSP synchronization, and VSP pathway predicted sport type. The model was significant, <i>χ<sup>2</sup></i>(6) = 37.08, <i>p</i> < .001, explaining 57.4% of the variance and correctly classified 88.1% of cases. The sensitivity was 87.5% and specificity was 88.9%. CSP synchronization did not increase the likelihood of participating in a contact sport. This was the first study to identify oculomotor differences between Olympic athletes of contact and non-contact sports, which adds to the growing evidence that oculomotor functioning may be a reliable, quick, real-time tool to help detect mTBI in sport.</p>","PeriodicalId":50125,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Motor Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Motor Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2024.2388769","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in oculomotor functioning between Olympic-level contact and non-contact sports participants. In total, 67 male and female Olympic-level contact (n = 27) and non-contact (n = 40) athletes completed oculomotor tasks, including Horizontal Saccade (HS), Circular Smooth Pursuit (CSP), Horizontal Smooth Pursuit (HSP), and Vertical Smooth Pursuit (VSP) using a remote eye tracker. No significant differences for sex or age occurred. Each variable indicated higher scores for contact compared to non-contact athletes (p < .05) except for VSP Pathway differences and CSP Synchronization. A logistic regression was performed to determine the degree that HS measures, CSP synchronization, and VSP pathway predicted sport type. The model was significant, χ2(6) = 37.08, p < .001, explaining 57.4% of the variance and correctly classified 88.1% of cases. The sensitivity was 87.5% and specificity was 88.9%. CSP synchronization did not increase the likelihood of participating in a contact sport. This was the first study to identify oculomotor differences between Olympic athletes of contact and non-contact sports, which adds to the growing evidence that oculomotor functioning may be a reliable, quick, real-time tool to help detect mTBI in sport.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Motor Behavior, a multidisciplinary journal of movement neuroscience, publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of motor control. Articles from different disciplinary perspectives and levels of analysis are encouraged, including neurophysiological, biomechanical, electrophysiological, psychological, mathematical and physical, and clinical approaches. Applied studies are acceptable only to the extent that they provide a significant contribution to a basic issue in motor control. Of special interest to the journal are those articles that attempt to bridge insights from different disciplinary perspectives to infer processes underlying motor control. Those approaches may embrace postural, locomotive, and manipulative aspects of motor functions, as well as coordination of speech articulators and eye movements. Articles dealing with analytical techniques and mathematical modeling are welcome.