Concussions And Heading Exposure Cause Cognitive Impairments In Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of cumulative heading in soccer (Association Football) on cognitive functioning remains an issue of debate. Several studies suggest that heading might cause sub-concussive blows to the head and that repeated heading could eventually lead to cognitive impairment. However, the interpretation of the data remains limited because of methodological issues (e.g., lack of appropriate control group and poor control for previous head injuries). PURPOSE: To determine the relative contribution of sport-related concussions and heading on the cognitive functioning of university soccer athletes. METHODS: We measured cognitive functioning in three groups of athletes using standardized neuropsychological tests and by means of event-related potentials elicited by a 3 stimulus oddball paradigm. The participants in the study were soccer players without a history of concussion (n = 18), soccer players who sustained one or more concussions (n = 22), and athletes from a non contact sport (volleyball, tennis, and badminton) who never sustained a concussion (n = 22). Group comparisons were investigated with a series of ANOVA's. RESULTS: No group differences were found for any of the neuropsychological tests used (p >0.05). Compared to the non contact sport athletes, the concussed soccer players had a significantly lower amplitude for the P3b component of their ERP waveform (F 2,58 = 3,278; p < 0.05). The results for the concussed and non concussed soccer athletes were not significantly different (p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in the P3b amplitude for the soccer players compared to the non contact sport athletes reflects subtitle deficits in the attentional processes related to updating information in working memory. These results also suggest that heading exposure alone affects cognitive processing in soccer athletes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".