4.3 Article

The acute neuropsychological effects of heading in soccer: A pilot study

期刊

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 104-109

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00042752-200004000-00004

关键词

soccer; headgear; psychology; headgear effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The main objective of this study was to prospectively examine the acute effects of heading in soccer on cognitive function. Design: This was a prospective cross-over study using a brief neuropsychological battery to assess cognitive function. The tests were performed before and after two separate practice sessions, with athletes serving as their own controls. Setting: Male and female Division I college athletes. Participants: Members of the men's and women's varsity collegiate Penn State University soccer teams. Forty-four males and 56 females entered and finished the study. All athletes had a normal physical examination. Interventions: Before and after both practice sessions, all athletes had a brief battery of neuropsychological tests and a symptom checklist. Main Outcome Measures: Neuropsychological tests symptom checklist compared at baseline with those after the practice sessions. Results: There were no significant differences in pretest scores between groups and no difference on posttest scores between heading and nonheading groups. A significant difference was detected using MANOVA (p = < 0.001) between pre- and posttest scores for measures of attention and concentration, indicating a practice effect. A gender-specific effect in one test measuring attention and concentration was found. There was no difference in symptoms before and after heading as compared with exertional controls. Conclusions: In this study, soccer players heading the ball does not appear to lead to acute changes in cognitive function as assessed by a brief neuropsychological battery. There are practice effects that occur with repetitive neuropsychological testing and gender differences with certain tests.

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

4.3
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