In agreement with this, evidence from studies investigating eye movements, in tasks such as the anti-saccadic task involving response inhibition  , showed that table tennis players  ,  , basketball players  and elite shooters  had shorter anti-saccadic latencies or less anti-saccadic errors compared to non-athletes. This evidence from manual and ocular responses suggests that inhibitory control might be enhanced via extensive practice of at least in some types of sport training. Although previous research has shown that athletes display superiority in inhibitory control, less is known about whether this can be modulated differentially across sport categories  as a result of the differences in required cognitive and motor demands that differ from one sport category to another  — .
In general, sports may be categorized into two types: open skill and closed skill sports. Open skill sports are defined as those in which players are required to react in a dynamically changing, unpredictable and externally-paced environment e. By contrast, closed skill sports are defined as those in which the sporting environment it is relatively highly consistent, predictable, and self-paced for players e.
Athletes from open skill sports may develop more flexibility in visual attention, decision making and action execution  , relative to athletes from closed skill sports. This rationale can be supported by meta-analysis studies that showed that athletes from open skill sports also referred to as interceptive or strategic sports performed better in cognitive tasks than those from closes skill sports or static sports , indicating the importance of comparing different types of sport  , .
Another factor necessary to consider may be any sport-related context in the cognitive task. For example, one study investigating response inhibition has reported that athletes from open skill sports baseball players performed better compared to those belonging to static sports track-and-field or gymnastics , but this superiority in inhibitory control occurred only in sport-specific experimental designs .
Therefore, it is also of interest to examine whether any difference in inhibitory control across sport categories can also be found by means of a task without a sport-specific declarative or procedural knowledge . In this task, there are two types of signals: 1 the go signal, which a response has to be made as soon as possible; 2 and the stop signal, which, when presented, requires the response to be withheld. One critical manipulation is the stop-signal delay SSD which is the interval between the go signal and the stop signal: the longer the SSD, the more difficult it is to inhibit responding, resulting in higher error rates  , .
This manipulation allows calculation of the stop-signal reaction time SSRT , a measure of the time required to inhibit a prepotent responses. Here we used the stop-signal task without a sport-specific design to investigate the effect of different categories of sporting experiences on inhibitory control.
The Increment System : A Complete Sports Psychology System
A racket sport tennis was chosen as the sport for the open skill sport group due to its requirement for superior motor control, fast interceptive actions, hand-eye coordination and a high perception-action demand  , . This sport also requires that players inhibit action within a very limited period if the ball is going out of play . Additionally, Tsai  demonstrated that racket sports have the capacity to improve inhibitory control performance in children with developmental coordination disorder DCD.
Swimmers were chosen as the closed skill sport group due to its stable, predictable training environment, and because the skills in swimmers are less affected by the environment  ,  , which may consequently result in less enhancement in cognitive skills relative to open skill sports.
Sedentary controls were recruited from those who reported having no historical specialty in any sports and did not partake in regular exercise at least in the 6 months prior to the study. Because better cognitive-motor performance might benefit from activities requiring both aerobic and cognitive demands  , we predicted tennis players would commit fewer errors response to stop-signal or have shorter SSRT than sedentary controls, whereas this superiority might be less significant in swimmers.
All subjects provided written informed consent prior to participating. Sixty male students were recruited from a university in northern Taiwan. Of these, twenty students were members of the varsity tennis team aged Additionally, all of the athletes who participated in the study were qualified for the second level of National Intercollegiate Athletic Games in Taiwan which is equivalent to one level below a professional standard for example, Taiwan tennis professionals are ranked from 59 to in the ATP world tour rankings. Because body mass index BMI is reported to be negatively associated with inhibitory control  , we also controlled for BMI across the groups.
All subjects had normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity and were right-handed. No individuals reported having a history of neurological problems or cardiovascular diseases, nor were any taking any medications that affect cognitive functions. This subsection will describe the instruments used in the present study, including the 7-day physical activity recall questionnaire, aerobic fitness evaluation, apparatus, and stop-signal task. In this questionnaire, the experimenter instructs the participants to recall their physical activities in the past 7 days, which can help estimate the time hours spent at different levels e.
Thus, this questionnaire could successfully screen unwanted subjects and categorize subject groups.
Self-Talk - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Additionally, because this questionnaire allowed the application of relatively strict screening criteria, it helped to ensure that athletic groups did not differ in their level of physical activity from control groups that would potentially bias the results. Hence, athletes and sedentary controls were excluded according to the following two criteria: 1 for the athletic groups: those who engaged in training programs less than three times per week; 2 for the control group, those who spent more than one hour per week exercising at the intensity of moderate or higher.
Be realistic. Answer: Number I could jog the entire distance at a fast pace 8 minutes per mile ], and physical activity level for the previous 6 months PA-R [e. This helps to avoid potential confounding factors which might bias the results. Testing took place in a sound attenuated room.
- Educational psychology.
- The History of Early Christianity in India.
- The Future of Jobs and Jobs Training.
- Hunt: The Awakened Magic Saga (The Faery Chronicles Book 1).
Subjects were seated 50 cm in front of the screen which was positioned at eye level. This task was adapted from previous studies  ,  , .
In the stop-signal task, the stop signal delay SSD can be manipulated by adjusting the time between the onset of the go stimulus and the stop signal. The noncancelled rate denotes the error rate when the stop signal is presented but subjects fail to inhibit their response. The outcome of the race between the go and the stop processes is reflected by the inhibition function, describing the probability of responding for a given a stop signal delay in accordance with the race model .
The stop signal reaction time SSRT denotes the latency of the stop process and it is the most important dependent variable in the task.
- Golf Psychology, The Key to Your Consistency and Performance.
- Who can edit:.
- The Quotable George W. Bush: A Portrait in His Own Words.
The SSRT can be measured from the observed distribution of RTs in no-stop signal trials in combination with the inhibition function . Each trial of the stop-signal task presented here began with a ms central fixation dot. The stop-signal task consisted of go and stop trials. All trials began central fixation. Following offset of the central fixation, a white peripheral dot was presented to the left or right of the fixation.
Every subject started with a session of the choice RT task 50 trials.
They were asked to make the response correctly and as quickly as possible to a target which appeared either in the left or the right visual field with their corresponding index fingers. This was therefore essentially the stop signal task without any stop trials. The mean go RT plus two standard deviations was set as the maximum time limit for go RT trials in the subsequent sessions.
If the subject did not respond quicker than this time restriction on a go trial, the trial was counted as a non-responding error and a warning beep would sound. This procedure has been demonstrated to effectively limit the strategy of intentionally slow responses that subjects sometimes use to avoid errors  ,  ,  , . A practice session consisting of 24 go trials and 8 stop trials was conducted following the Go RT section. The SSD was fixed at ms in the stop trails in this section. The experimental trials were identical in structure apart from the SSD, as were the subsequent formal test session trials.
After subjects performed the go time-limited session and the practice session, they in turn carried out a critical SSD session. This session also helped to reduce the number of trials in the formal test sections. A tracking procedure was employed for acquiring the critical SSD. According to the previous studies  ,  and pilot experiments, the initial SSD was set at ms. If the noncancelled rate was higher than Three experimental blocks were presented for each condition, and each block included 48 trails, lasting approximately 4 minutes; the occurrence and order of the three stop signal presentation conditions were embedded randomly within each block.
After providing informed consent, subjects took part in the experimental procedure that included two phases: the first phase consisted of the 7-day Physical Activity Recall and aerobic fitness questionnaires. The second phase comprised the stop signal task consisting of three stages. The total duration of the experimental was approximately 40 minutes.
The experimental procedure is illustrated in the Fig. Tennis players, swimmers and sedentary controls were firstly provided with informed consent, 7. Secondly, all eligible subjects took part in a stop-signal task consisted of three stages: get Go session, critical SSD session, and test session.
For the stop signal task performance, the following were filtered and were excluded from analysis: 1 non-response trials, 2 trials with responses to the wrong target, 3 trials with latencies more than 2 standard deviations above those obtained in the Go RT session. Stop signal reaction times SSRT were calculated using the distribution of go signal reaction times and the probability of responding for a given stop signal delay the inhibition function in accordance with the race model .
In the present study, SSRTs for each stop signal delay were estimated by using the integration method  ,  , . The figure illustrates the relation between stop signal delay, the stop signal reaction time and the distribution of go reaction times. The distribution of go reaction is integrated from the time of go signal presentation. For each stop signal delay, a probability of responding is obtained. The rest of the SSRT were calculated with the same procedure.
Moreover, because basic factors such as BMI, training experience, estimated levels of physical activity and VO2max may be related with SSRTs due to their associations with cognitive performance  —  ,  ,  , we adopted a hierarchical stepwise regression approach which has the capacity to tease out confounding factors. This procedure evaluates each variable in turn on the basis of extent of correlation and builds the model by adding variables sequentially. The variable having highest correlation with the dependent variable would be added to the model first, then the second best or so on.