Clinical & experimental optometry · 2024
Comparative analysis of visual and cognitive performance in esports athletes and soccer players.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jorge Jorge, Cymbron Filipe, da Silva Pedro Honório, Almeida Couto Pedro
Аннотация
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.
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.