揭示区别:计算机与运动特异性神经认知测试。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
Benedict Gondwe, Pieter Heuvelmans, Anne Benjaminse, Daniel Büchel, Jochen Baumeister, Alli Gokeler
{"title":"揭示区别:计算机与运动特异性神经认知测试。","authors":"Benedict Gondwe, Pieter Heuvelmans, Anne Benjaminse, Daniel Büchel, Jochen Baumeister, Alli Gokeler","doi":"10.1123/jsr.2024-0304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Traditional assessments of high-order neurocognitive functions are conducted using pen and paper or computer-based tests; this neglects the complex motor actions athletes have to make in team ball sports. Previous research has not explored the combination of neurocognitive functions and motor demands through complex tasks for team ball sport athletes. The primary aim of the present study was to determine the construct validity of agility-based neurocognitive tests of working memory (WM) and inhibition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-seven athletes (5 females; mean age 24.2 [4.7] y; height 183.6 [9.1] cm; body mass 77.5 [11.2] kg) participated in the construct validity assessments that included computer-based tests (working memory capacity and stop-signal reaction time) and sport-specific assessments performed on the SpeedCourt system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Construct validity analysis of sport-specific working memory yielded acceptable construct validity (r = .465, P < .05), whereas the sport-specific stop-signal task resulted in low construct validity (r = .179, P > .05). The poor construct validity results highlight the large variance between computer-based and sport-specific neurocognitive assessments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sport-specific assessments are more complex and include more degrees of freedom potentially due to athletes' center of mass displacement during task execution. These findings suggest that future research should focus more on the development of sport-specific assessments. These should include the cognitive and motor demands encountered during practice and competition, not use computer-based/pen and paper assessments for return to play decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50041,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unveiling the Distinctions: Computer Versus Sport-Specific Neurocognitive Tests.\",\"authors\":\"Benedict Gondwe, Pieter Heuvelmans, Anne Benjaminse, Daniel Büchel, Jochen Baumeister, Alli Gokeler\",\"doi\":\"10.1123/jsr.2024-0304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Traditional assessments of high-order neurocognitive functions are conducted using pen and paper or computer-based tests; this neglects the complex motor actions athletes have to make in team ball sports. Previous research has not explored the combination of neurocognitive functions and motor demands through complex tasks for team ball sport athletes. The primary aim of the present study was to determine the construct validity of agility-based neurocognitive tests of working memory (WM) and inhibition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twenty-seven athletes (5 females; mean age 24.2 [4.7] y; height 183.6 [9.1] cm; body mass 77.5 [11.2] kg) participated in the construct validity assessments that included computer-based tests (working memory capacity and stop-signal reaction time) and sport-specific assessments performed on the SpeedCourt system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Construct validity analysis of sport-specific working memory yielded acceptable construct validity (r = .465, P < .05), whereas the sport-specific stop-signal task resulted in low construct validity (r = .179, P > .05). The poor construct validity results highlight the large variance between computer-based and sport-specific neurocognitive assessments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sport-specific assessments are more complex and include more degrees of freedom potentially due to athletes' center of mass displacement during task execution. These findings suggest that future research should focus more on the development of sport-specific assessments. These should include the cognitive and motor demands encountered during practice and competition, not use computer-based/pen and paper assessments for return to play decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0304\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2024-0304","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:传统的高阶神经认知功能评估是通过纸笔或计算机测试进行的;这忽略了运动员在团队球类运动中必须做出的复杂动作。以前的研究并没有通过团队球类运动运动员的复杂任务来探索神经认知功能和运动需求的结合。本研究的主要目的是确定基于敏捷性的工作记忆和抑制神经认知测试的构念效度。方法:27名运动员(女5名;平均年龄24.2 [4.7]y;高183.6 [9.1]cm;体重77.5 [11.2]kg的参与者参与了建构效度评估,包括基于计算机的测试(工作记忆容量和停止信号反应时间)和在SpeedCourt系统上进行的特定运动评估。结果:运动特异性工作记忆的构念效度分析获得了可接受的构念效度(r = 0.465, P < 0.05),而运动特异性停止信号任务的构念效度较低(r = 0.179, P < 0.05)。较差的结构效度结果突出了基于计算机和特定运动的神经认知评估之间的巨大差异。结论:特定运动的评估更为复杂,由于运动员在任务执行过程中的重心位移,可能包括更多的自由度。这些发现表明,未来的研究应该更多地关注体育专项评估的发展。这些应该包括在练习和比赛中遇到的认知和运动要求,而不是使用基于计算机/笔和纸的评估来决定是否回归比赛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unveiling the Distinctions: Computer Versus Sport-Specific Neurocognitive Tests.

Context: Traditional assessments of high-order neurocognitive functions are conducted using pen and paper or computer-based tests; this neglects the complex motor actions athletes have to make in team ball sports. Previous research has not explored the combination of neurocognitive functions and motor demands through complex tasks for team ball sport athletes. The primary aim of the present study was to determine the construct validity of agility-based neurocognitive tests of working memory (WM) and inhibition.

Methods: Twenty-seven athletes (5 females; mean age 24.2 [4.7] y; height 183.6 [9.1] cm; body mass 77.5 [11.2] kg) participated in the construct validity assessments that included computer-based tests (working memory capacity and stop-signal reaction time) and sport-specific assessments performed on the SpeedCourt system.

Results: Construct validity analysis of sport-specific working memory yielded acceptable construct validity (r = .465, P < .05), whereas the sport-specific stop-signal task resulted in low construct validity (r = .179, P > .05). The poor construct validity results highlight the large variance between computer-based and sport-specific neurocognitive assessments.

Conclusion: Sport-specific assessments are more complex and include more degrees of freedom potentially due to athletes' center of mass displacement during task execution. These findings suggest that future research should focus more on the development of sport-specific assessments. These should include the cognitive and motor demands encountered during practice and competition, not use computer-based/pen and paper assessments for return to play decisions.

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
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
143
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (JSR) is your source for the latest peer-reviewed research in the field of sport rehabilitation. All members of the sports-medicine team will benefit from the wealth of important information in each issue. JSR is completely devoted to the rehabilitation of sport and exercise injuries, regardless of the age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status of the participant. JSR publishes peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, critically appraised topics (CATs), case studies/series, and technical reports that directly affect the management and rehabilitation of injuries incurred during sport-related activities, irrespective of the individual’s age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status. The journal is intended to provide an international, multidisciplinary forum to serve the needs of all members of the sports medicine team, including athletic trainers/therapists, sport physical therapists/physiotherapists, sports medicine physicians, and other health care and medical professionals.
×
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