Frontiers in physiology · 2026
Do strategically demanding sports shape hand function alike? Distinct profiles of dexterity and grip strength in basketball and badminton athletes.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Gao Xinpeng, Hou Jinlong, Du Chengzhe, Gao Yanan, Kong Fei, Li Ming
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Long-term participation in strategic sports may enhance hand dexterity and cognitive function, but sport-specific differences in manual control, force production, and cognition remain unclear. This study compared hand dexterity, grip strength, and cognitive performance among basketball athletes, badminton athletes, and non-athletes.
METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included 90 right-handed participants (6 females, 84 males; mean age 20.57 ± 1.64 years) divided into the basketball athlete group (BAG), badminton athlete group (BmAG), and non-athlete controls (NCG). Participants completed the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT), Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT), handgrip strength test (HD), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Stroop Color-Word Test (SCWT). Results: Both BAG and BmAG outperformed NCG in PPT dominant-hand scores, combined task scores, GPT completion speed, MoCA scores, and SCWT word reading (all P < 0.05). BmAG also showed superior PPT non-dominant-hand performance, bimanual coordination, and total scores compared with NCG, and better bimanual coordination than BAG (BmAG vs. NCG: P < 0.001, d = 0.96; BmAG vs. BAG: P = 0.033, d = 0.66). BAG demonstrated greater dominant-hand grip strength than NCG (P = 0.007, d = 0.90), whereas BmAG did not. No group differences were found in SCWT inhibitory control or cognitive flexibility.
CONCLUSION: Badminton participation was associated with superior fine motor control and bimanual coordination, whereas basketball participation was associated with greater dominant-hand grip strength. Both athletic groups showed better selected manual and cognitive outcomes than NCG. However, the cross-sectional, male-skewed sample cannot establish causality, and the MoCA findings should be interpreted cautiously because of its ceiling effect in healthy young participants. Longitudinal or intervention studies are warranted. After Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple outcomes, the group effects for PPT non-dominant-hand performance, dominant-hand grip strength, and Stroop word reading did not remain significant and are therefore interpreted as exploratory.
METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study included 90 right-handed participants (6 females, 84 males; mean age 20.57 ± 1.64 years) divided into the basketball athlete group (BAG), badminton athlete group (BmAG), and non-athlete controls (NCG). Participants completed the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT), Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT), handgrip strength test (HD), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and Stroop Color-Word Test (SCWT). Results: Both BAG and BmAG outperformed NCG in PPT dominant-hand scores, combined task scores, GPT completion speed, MoCA scores, and SCWT word reading (all P < 0.05). BmAG also showed superior PPT non-dominant-hand performance, bimanual coordination, and total scores compared with NCG, and better bimanual coordination than BAG (BmAG vs. NCG: P < 0.001, d = 0.96; BmAG vs. BAG: P = 0.033, d = 0.66). BAG demonstrated greater dominant-hand grip strength than NCG (P = 0.007, d = 0.90), whereas BmAG did not. No group differences were found in SCWT inhibitory control or cognitive flexibility.
CONCLUSION: Badminton participation was associated with superior fine motor control and bimanual coordination, whereas basketball participation was associated with greater dominant-hand grip strength. Both athletic groups showed better selected manual and cognitive outcomes than NCG. However, the cross-sectional, male-skewed sample cannot establish causality, and the MoCA findings should be interpreted cautiously because of its ceiling effect in healthy young participants. Longitudinal or intervention studies are warranted. After Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple outcomes, the group effects for PPT non-dominant-hand performance, dominant-hand grip strength, and Stroop word reading did not remain significant and are therefore interpreted as exploratory.