ArticleEuropean journal of sport science2026
A Critical Examination of the Usefulness of Taxonomies for Comparing Cognitive Functions Across Sports.
Article in European journal of sport science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Taxonomies are widely used in sport science to classify disciplines according to structural, cognitive, and physiological demands, yet their robustness in differentiating athletes' cognitive performance remains uncertain. This study examined whether commonly applied sport classification frameworks-open versus closed skills, strategic-static-interceptive, participant classification, and multidimensional team/precision-skill/speed-strength-meaningfully represent cognitive differences within junior and senior national squad athletes. A total of 595 national squad athletes from eight sports (artistic gymnastics, rhythmic gymnastics, trampoline, basketball, volleyball, ice hockey, table tennis, modern pentathlon) completed standardized measures of basic (processing speed, attention) and higher (working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility) cognitive functions. Using a model comparison approach, we show that the usefulness of taxonomic contrasts is limited because taxonomy-based models did not improve model fit relative to the null model or the model containing single sport disciplines. For processing speed, single disciplines provided the best fit. Supplementary analyses showed that processing-speed-based norm scores were above population means and moderately related to attention, but only weakly related to working memory and unrelated to executive control measures. Together, these findings suggest that conclusions about cognitive differences among high-performance athletes cannot be reliably made using taxonomic classifications as they lack robustness under realistic sampling conditions. The results underscore the importance of sport-specific and individual-level approaches when investigating cognitive functioning in high-performance sport contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.