Author(s): ROLLEY, T., SAUNDERS, N., FOX, A.S., Institution: DEAKIN UNIVERSITY, Country: AUSTRALIA, Abstract-ID: 1549

Introduction
Optimal sporting performance relies on a complex interplay of an athlete’s sporting abilities, including cognitive function (1). Poor cognitive performance (e.g. slower reaction times) in athletes has been associated with compromised-making processes, resulting in poor execution of athletic tasks impacting performance or safety (1). Generic cognitive tests are typically used to assess cognitive function in athletes, which may be lack ecological validity and therefore misrepresent sport-specific cognitive performance. The aim of this study is to assess relationships between generic cognitive tests and a sport-specific decision-making task.
Methods
Twenty (elite: n=6; sub-elite n=14) (mean±SD, age=24.11±5.64years; height=169.15±6.21cm; mass=66.50±7.92kg) women’s Australian-rules football players participated in this study. Correct response reaction time (i.e. time taken in accurate responses to stimulus) and performance accuracy (i.e. percentage of accurate responses) were assessed across tests targeting various cognitive parameters: (i) Deary Liewald task (i.e. simple reaction time); (ii) one-, two- and three-back tasks (i.e. working memory); (iii) four-choice reaction time task (i.e. choice reaction time); (iv) one-card learning task (i.e. visual learning). Sport-specific reaction time was determined through a specifically developed decision-making task which required responding to an attacking player’s movement cues. Relationships between the generic cognitive tests and the sport-specific decision-making task were assessed using Pearson’s r correlations (α=0.05).
Results
No statistically significant relationships were found between the generic cognitive tests to the sport-specific decision-making task for either correct response time or performance accuracy (p>0.05). A non-statistically significant moderate correlation (r=0.42, p=0.065) was found between the four-choice reaction time task and the sport-specific decision-making task.
Conclusion
The lack of relationship between the generic cognitive tests and sport-specific decision-making task may be explained by task complexity. It is possible that the generic cognitive tests do not accurately assess an athlete’s cognitive ability to read-and-react to cues in a sport-specific context (e.g. reading an opposition player’s body cues). The moderate correlation between the four-choice reaction time task to the sport-specific decision-making task could suggest this generic test appropriately measures an athlete’s ability to selectively attend to and filter relevant cues. With the generic cognitive tests demonstrating no relationship to performance on a sport-specific cognitive task, future research to improve the ecological validity of cognitive testing in sport is warranted.
References:
(1) Mori et al., Hum. Mov. Sci., 2002