Think, see, do: Executive function, visual attention, and soccer penalty performance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Executive function and visual attention have been reported as important for sport performance in high-pressure situations, yet the interaction between these factors is not fully understood despite joint theoretical links to Attentional Control Theory-Sport. Specifically, whether visual attention (i.e., quiet eye, search rate, and fixations to key locations) mediates the relationship between executive function (i.e., shifting, inhibition, and updating) and soccer penalty performance under pressure is still unknown. An experimental between-subjects design with random assignment to low- and high-pressure conditions was used. Ninety-five participants (Mage = 25.07, SDage = 7.50 years, 58 males) with a range of training and competitive soccer experience (Myears = 6.09, SDyears = 7.82), completed measures of situational stress, physical activity, athletic expertise, and tasks of executive function, before completing a soccer penalty task while visual attention was recorded via a mobile eye-tracker. Between-subjects ANCOVA showed no significant differences between the pressure conditions in visual attention or soccer penalty performance, so subsequent analyses were collapsed across all participants. Mediation revealed that the effect of inhibition on soccer penalty performance was significantly mediated by quiet eye duration, search rate, and the number of fixations toward the goal. Also, the effect of updating on soccer penalty performance was significantly mediated by quiet eye duration and location, and the number of fixations toward the goal. These results are the first to suggest that executive function (inhibition and updating) and visual attention (quiet eye duration and location, fixations toward the goal, and search rate) combine to enhance soccer penalty performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".