电子竞技运动员和足球运动员视觉和认知表现的比较分析。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Jorge Jorge, Filipe Cymbron, Pedro Honório da Silva, Pedro Almeida Couto
{"title":"电子竞技运动员和足球运动员视觉和认知表现的比较分析。","authors":"Jorge Jorge, Filipe Cymbron, Pedro Honório da Silva, Pedro Almeida Couto","doi":"10.1080/08164622.2024.2430637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Assessing visual and cognitive performance in athletes is important for optimising training strategies and preventing visual strain in both esports and traditional sports.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compared visual acuity, refractive error, binocular functions, and cognitive perception measures between esports and soccer players to optimise visual performance strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-eight male esports athletes and 38 male soccer players were assessed. Visual acuity was measured using an ETDRS chart, and refractive error was assessed with retinoscopy. Phoria was evaluated with the Modified Thorington Technique at distance and near. Fusional vergence ranges and vergence facility were measured using prism bars and a prism flipper. Monocular accommodative facility at near was tested with ± 2.00D flipper lenses. Stereopsis was assessed using the Randot Stereo Test. Perception span, multiple object tracking, and visual reaction time, were evaluated using the Senaptec Sensory Station.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Soccer players had significantly better visual acuity than esports athletes. For the right eye, the soccer group had an average decimal visual acuity of 1.1 ± 0.2 compared to 0.9 ± 0.1 in the esports group (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Refractive error analysis showed that esports athletes had more myopia (<i>M</i> =-0.67 ± 1.70D) and higher astigmatism (J0 = 0.47 ± 0.53D) than soccer players (<i>M</i> = 0.6 ± 1.06D, J0 = 0.09 ± 0.43D; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Soccer players demonstrated better negative fusional vergence at distance (<i>p</i> = 0.049) and superior near-accommodative facility (12.4 ± 4.2 cpm vs. 9.4 ± 5.2 cpm; <i>p</i> = 0.025). Soccer players also outperformed esports athletes in multiple object tracking (1811.3 ± 391.3 vs. 1523.4 ± 528.7; <i>p</i> = 0.013). No significant differences were observed in stereopsis or other binocular vision parameters.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Soccer players showed superior visual acuity and performance in tasks such as negative fusional vergence and near-accommodative facility compared to esports players. Esports athletes had more myopia and astigmatism, indicating a need for targeted visual interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10214,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of visual and cognitive performance in esports athletes and soccer players.\",\"authors\":\"Jorge Jorge, Filipe Cymbron, Pedro Honório da Silva, Pedro Almeida Couto\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08164622.2024.2430637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Assessing visual and cognitive performance in athletes is important for optimising training strategies and preventing visual strain in both esports and traditional sports.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>This study compared visual acuity, refractive error, binocular functions, and cognitive perception measures between esports and soccer players to optimise visual performance strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-eight male esports athletes and 38 male soccer players were assessed. Visual acuity was measured using an ETDRS chart, and refractive error was assessed with retinoscopy. Phoria was evaluated with the Modified Thorington Technique at distance and near. Fusional vergence ranges and vergence facility were measured using prism bars and a prism flipper. Monocular accommodative facility at near was tested with ± 2.00D flipper lenses. Stereopsis was assessed using the Randot Stereo Test. Perception span, multiple object tracking, and visual reaction time, were evaluated using the Senaptec Sensory Station.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Soccer players had significantly better visual acuity than esports athletes. For the right eye, the soccer group had an average decimal visual acuity of 1.1 ± 0.2 compared to 0.9 ± 0.1 in the esports group (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Refractive error analysis showed that esports athletes had more myopia (<i>M</i> =-0.67 ± 1.70D) and higher astigmatism (J0 = 0.47 ± 0.53D) than soccer players (<i>M</i> = 0.6 ± 1.06D, J0 = 0.09 ± 0.43D; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Soccer players demonstrated better negative fusional vergence at distance (<i>p</i> = 0.049) and superior near-accommodative facility (12.4 ± 4.2 cpm vs. 9.4 ± 5.2 cpm; <i>p</i> = 0.025). Soccer players also outperformed esports athletes in multiple object tracking (1811.3 ± 391.3 vs. 1523.4 ± 528.7; <i>p</i> = 0.013). No significant differences were observed in stereopsis or other binocular vision parameters.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Soccer players showed superior visual acuity and performance in tasks such as negative fusional vergence and near-accommodative facility compared to esports players. Esports athletes had more myopia and astigmatism, indicating a need for targeted visual interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Optometry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Optometry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2024.2430637\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2024.2430637","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床相关性:在电子竞技和传统运动中,评估运动员的视觉和认知表现对于优化训练策略和预防视觉疲劳都很重要。背景:本研究比较了电子竞技运动员和足球运动员的视力、屈光不正、双眼功能和认知知觉指标,以优化视觉表现策略。方法:对28名男性电竞运动员和38名男性足球运动员进行评估。使用ETDRS表测量视力,并通过视网膜镜检查评估屈光不正。用改良的索林顿法在远处和近处评价光性。用棱镜杆和棱镜鳍测量了融合的聚光范围和聚光能力。用±2.00D鳍状透镜测试近眼单眼调节功能。采用随机立体视觉测试评估立体视觉。使用Senaptec感官站评估感知广度、多目标跟踪和视觉反应时间。结果:足球运动员的视敏度明显优于电子竞技运动员。对于右眼,足球组的平均视力为1.1±0.2,而电子竞技组的平均视力为0.9±0.1 (p M =-0.67±1.70D),散光(J0 = 0.47±0.53D)高于足球运动员(M = 0.6±1.06D, J0 = 0.09±0.43 3d;P = 0.049)和优越的近调节设施(12.4±4.2 CPM vs. 9.4±5.2 CPM;P = 0.025)。足球运动员在多目标跟踪方面也优于电子竞技运动员(1811.3±391.3比1523.4±528.7;p = 0.013)。在立体视觉或其他双目视觉参数上没有观察到显著差异。结论:足球运动员的视觉敏锐度和在负融合收敛、近调节设施等任务上的表现优于电竞运动员。电子竞技运动员有更多的近视和散光,这表明需要有针对性的视力干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative analysis of visual and cognitive performance in esports athletes and soccer players.

Clinical relevance: Assessing visual and cognitive performance in athletes is important for optimising training strategies and preventing visual strain in both esports and traditional sports.

Background: This study compared visual acuity, refractive error, binocular functions, and cognitive perception measures between esports and soccer players to optimise visual performance strategies.

Methods: Twenty-eight male esports athletes and 38 male soccer players were assessed. Visual acuity was measured using an ETDRS chart, and refractive error was assessed with retinoscopy. Phoria was evaluated with the Modified Thorington Technique at distance and near. Fusional vergence ranges and vergence facility were measured using prism bars and a prism flipper. Monocular accommodative facility at near was tested with ± 2.00D flipper lenses. Stereopsis was assessed using the Randot Stereo Test. Perception span, multiple object tracking, and visual reaction time, were evaluated using the Senaptec Sensory Station.

Results: Soccer players had significantly better visual acuity than esports athletes. For the right eye, the soccer group had an average decimal visual acuity of 1.1 ± 0.2 compared to 0.9 ± 0.1 in the esports group (p < 0.001). Refractive error analysis showed that esports athletes had more myopia (M =-0.67 ± 1.70D) and higher astigmatism (J0 = 0.47 ± 0.53D) than soccer players (M = 0.6 ± 1.06D, J0 = 0.09 ± 0.43D; p < 0.001). Soccer players demonstrated better negative fusional vergence at distance (p = 0.049) and superior near-accommodative facility (12.4 ± 4.2 cpm vs. 9.4 ± 5.2 cpm; p = 0.025). Soccer players also outperformed esports athletes in multiple object tracking (1811.3 ± 391.3 vs. 1523.4 ± 528.7; p = 0.013). No significant differences were observed in stereopsis or other binocular vision parameters.

Conclusion: Soccer players showed superior visual acuity and performance in tasks such as negative fusional vergence and near-accommodative facility compared to esports players. Esports athletes had more myopia and astigmatism, indicating a need for targeted visual interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
5.30%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Optometry is a peer reviewed journal listed by ISI and abstracted by PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Citation Index and Current Contents. It publishes original research papers and reviews in clinical optometry and vision science. Debate and discussion of controversial scientific and clinical issues is encouraged and letters to the Editor and short communications expressing points of view on matters within the Journal''s areas of interest are welcome. The Journal is published six times annually.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信