Author(s): PAN, H., LILONG, L., HAO, Z., ZHERUI, L., Institution: THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH, Country: UNITED KINGDOM, Abstract-ID: 1708

Objective
This study aimed to investigate whether the cognitive advantages associated with different types of sport expertise arise from differences in speed–accuracy trade-off (SAT) strategies within visual working memory (VWM), rather than from an overall enhancement in domain-general cognitive capacity. Specifically, open-skill and closed-skill athletes were compared in terms of precision and response speed, and the stability of these performance profiles under 75-dB white-noise exposure was examined. To avoid potentially misleading conclusions based on a single metric, an inverse efficiency score (IES) was calculated to differentiate overall processing efficiency from strategic bias.
Method
Thirty-four university athletes (17 open-skill, 17 closed-skill; mean age = 20.5 years) completed a 2 (Sport Type) × 2 (Condition: quiet vs white noise) mixed-design experiment. Participants performed a colour-wheel continuous-report task, recalling three coloured squares per trial, with 60 trials per condition. Precision was indexed by mean absolute error (MAE), with smaller values indicating higher fidelity. Processing speed was indexed by reaction time (RT). To capture overall efficiency, MAE and RT were z-standardised and summed to form the inverse efficiency score (IES). Data were analysed using mixed-design ANOVAs, and partial eta-squared (ηp²) values were reported.
Results
A robust double dissociation emerged. Closed-skill athletes demonstrated significantly higher precision (MAE = 29.59° vs 37.82°), F(1,32)=11.42, p=.002, ηp²=.26, whereas open-skill athletes responded significantly faster (RT = 1.23 s vs 1.77 s), F(1,32)=38.65, p<.001, ηp²=.55. White noise did not affect precision (F=0.21, p=.649) and showed no interaction with sport type (F=0.008, p=.779). However, it significantly reduced overall reaction time (1.55 s to 1.45 s), F(1,32)=5.23, p=.029, ηp²=.14, without a significant interaction effect (F=1.92, p=.175). Critically, IES did not differ between groups, t(32)=0.10, p=.318, d=0.03, indicating comparable overall processing efficiency across sport types.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that sport expertise does not confer a uniform cognitive enhancement but instead reshapes how limited VWM resources are allocated. Open-skill training may prioritise rapid decision-making, whereas closed-skill training may emphasise precision and stability. Although both groups achieved comparable overall efficiency, they adopted opposing SAT strategies. Moderate white noise accelerated response speed without compromising memory fidelity, yet did not alter the underlying strategic profiles shaped by training experience. Environmental stimulation may influence processing tempo, but it appears insufficient to override entrenched cognitive allocation patterns.