4.5 Article

Fencing expertise and physical fitness enhance action inhibition

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY OF SPORT AND EXERCISE
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 509-514

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.04.006

关键词

Fencing performance; Inhibitory control; Motor skill; Physical fitness

资金

  1. Chinese University of Hong Kong [FTP110121F18]
  2. Department of Psychology of the Chinese University of Hong Kong

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study investigated the effects of fencing expertise and physical fitness on the inhibitory control of fencers and non-fencers. Design: This study used a 2 x 2 factorial design. Fencers and non-fencers both in low-fit and averagely-fit subgroups were compared in reaction times (RT) and accuracy in simple reaction time (SRT) and go/no-go reaction time (go/no-go RT) tasks. Method: The participants were 30 fencers (aged 18-26) and 30 non-fencers (aged 19-25), each having a different fitness level. With a standard computer keyboard, each participant performed an SRT task by responding to all stimuli. In the go/no-go RT task, each participant responded only to the go signals while withholding their response to the no-go signals. Results: There were no significant differences between the participants with different levels of fitness or fencing expertise in SRT, go/no-go RT, omission error and commission error. However, an interaction of fitness and fencing expertise on commission error was found (p < .05). Averagely-fit fencers committed a similar number of errors to the averagely-fit non-fencers, but the high-fit fencers committed significantly fewer errors compared to the high-fit non-fencers (p < .05). Conclusions: Fencing experience and physical fitness facilitate a person's ability to withhold action when necessary. The interactive nature of aerobic fitness and sport expertise on action inhibition suggests that cognitive control benefits most from the combination of physical and mental training compared to when each is administered singly. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据