The Role of Gaze Behavior in Basketball Shooting Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elite and Near-Elite Players
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy and Study Selection
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.2.1. Inclusion Criteria
2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria
2.3. Quality of Studies
2.4. Data Extraction and Meta-Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Search, Screening, and Quality Assessment Outcomes
3.2. General Characteristics of Studies
3.2.1. Correlations Between Gaze Behavior and Shooting Performance
3.2.2. Differences in Gaze Behavior with Shooting Performance Between Elite and Near-Elite Basketball Players
4. Discussion
4.1. Gaze Behaviors and Shooting Performance
4.2. Differences Between Competition Levels
4.3. Practical Implications
4.4. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gryko, K.; Kopiczko, A.; Mikołajec, K.; Stasny, P.; Musalek, M. Anthropometric variables and somatotype of young and professional male basketball players. Sports 2018, 6, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miller, S.; Bartlett, R. The relationship between basketball shooting kinematics, distance and playing position. J. Sports Sci. 1996, 14, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zwierko, T.; Popowczak, M.; Woźniak, J.; Rokita, A. Visual control in basketball shooting under exertion conditions. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2017, 58, 1544–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirnik, M.; Erčulj, F.; Rošker, J. Research of visual attention in basketball shooting: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2022, 17, 1195–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vickers, J.N. Visual control when aiming at a far target. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1996, 22, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vickers, J.N.; Causer, J.; Vanhooren, D. The role of quiet eye timing and location in the basketball three-point shot: A new research paradigm. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klostermann, A. Especial skill vs. quiet eye duration in basketball free throw: Evidence for the inhibition of competing task solutions. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2019, 19, 964–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rui, M.; Fernando, M.; Ricardo, G.; Martinho, D.V.; Rui, M.; Moore, S.A.; Coelho-e-Silva, M.J.; Gonçalo, D. Visual Information in Basketball Jump-Shots: Differences between Youth and Adult Athletes. J. Hum. Kinet. 2023, 89, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oudejans, R.R.; Van De Langenberg, R.W.; Hutter, R.V. Aiming at a far target under different viewing conditions: Visual control in basketball jump shooting. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2002, 21, 457–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Maarseveen, M.J.J.; Oudejans, R.R.D.; Mann, D.L.; Savelsbergh, G.J.P. Motor and gaze behaviors of youth basketball players taking contested and uncontested jump shots. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uchida, Y.; Mizuguchi, N.; Honda, M.; Kanosue, K. Prediction of shot success for basketball free throws: Visual search strategy. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2014, 14, 426–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, B.; Ciuffreda, K.J. Depth-of-focus of the human eye in the near retinal periphery. Vis. Res. 2004, 44, 1115–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Czyż, S.H.; Zvonař, M.; Borysiuk, Z.; Nykodým, J.; Oleśniewicz, P. Gaze behavior in basketball free throws developed in constant and variable practice. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jin, Y.; He, J. Effects of visual search task on attentional bias and stress response under pressure. Work 2021, 69, 687–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rienhoff, R.; Hopwood, M.J.; Fischer, L.; Strauss, B.; Baker, J.; Schorer, J. Transfer of motor and perceptual skills from basketball to darts. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4, 593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, P.; Dos’Santos, T. (Eds.) Multidirectional Speed in Sport: Research to Application; Taylor & Francis: Milton Park, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Scanlan, A.T.; Wen, N.; Tucker, P.S.; Dalbo, V.J. The relationships between internal and external training load models during basketball training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 2397–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fadde, P.J.; Zaichkowsky, L. Training perceptual-cognitive skills in sports using technology. J. Sport Psychol. Action 2018, 9, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, J.; Smeeton, N.J.; Fasold, F.; Schul, K.; Schön, T.; Klatt, S. Shot deception in basketball: Gaze and anticipation strategy in defence. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2022, 84, 102975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klostermann, A.; Panchuk, D.; Farrow, D. Perception-action coupling in complex game play: Exploring the quiet eye in contested basketball jump shots. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 36, 1054–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, M.R.; Vine, S.J.; Wood, G. The influence of anxiety on visual attentional control in basketball free throw shooting. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2009, 31, 152–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raich, A.L.; Skelly, A.C. Asking the right question: Specifying your study question. Evid.-Based Spine-Care J. 2013, 4, 068–071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKay, A.K.A.; Stellingwerff, T.; Smith, E.S.; Martin, D.T.; Mujika, I.; Goosey-Tolfrey, V.L.; Sheppard, J.; Burke, L.M. Defining training and performance caliber: A participant classification framework. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2021, 17, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, M.; Gómez-Ruano, M.-A.; Calvo, A.L.; Calvo, J.L. Basketball talent identification: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the anthropometric, physiological and physical performance factors. Front. Sports Act. Living 2023, 5, 1264872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molik, B.; Laskin, J.J.; Kosmol, A.; Skucas, K.; Bida, U. Relationship between functional classification levels and anaerobic performance of wheelchair basketball athletes. Res. Q Exerc. Sport 2010, 81, 69–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goosey-Tolfrey, V.; Butterworth, D.; Morriss, C. Free Throw Shooting Technique of Male Wheelchair Basketball Players. Adapt. Phys. Act. Q 2002, 19, 238–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rimmer, J.H.; Rowland, J.L. Health Promotion for People with Disabilities: Implications for Empowering the Person and Promoting Disability-Friendly Environments. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2008, 2, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.N.; Chowdhury, A.R.; Rana, M.S.; Hossain, R.; Hassen, T.A.; Chojenta, C.; Harris, M.L. Effects of family planning counseling delivered during maternal healthcare on postpartum modern contraceptive uptake in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. medRxiv 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Law, M.; Stewart, D.; Letts, L.; Pollock, N.; Bosch, J.; Westmorland, M. Critical Review form, Qualitative Studies; McMaster University: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 1998; Available online: https://www.mcgill.ca/cpengine/files/cpengine/quanreview_form1.doc (accessed on 12 October 2023).
- Letts, L.; Wilkins, S.; Law, M.; Stewart, D.; Bosch, J.; Westmorland, M. Guidelines for Critical Review Form: Qualitative Studies (Version 2.0); McMaster University Occupational Therapy Evidence-Based Practice Research Group; McMaster University: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2007; Available online: https://www.canchild.ca/system/tenon/assets/attachments/000/000/360/original/qualguide.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2023).
- Sarmento, H.; Anguera, M.T.; Pereira, A.; Araújo, D. Talent identification and development in male football: A systematic review. Sports Med. 2018, 48, 907–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.; Chandler, J.; Welch, V.; Higgins, J.P.; Thomas, J. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Borenstein, M.; Cooper, H.; Hedges, L.; Valentine, J. Effect sizes for continuous data. Handb. Res. Synth. Meta-Anal. 2009, 2, 221–235. [Google Scholar]
- Wagle, J.P. Kinetic and Kinematic Characteristics of Accentuated Eccentric Loading; East Tennessee State University: Johnson City, TN, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Borges, J.Y.V. Erectile Dysfunction and Cardiovascular Disease Risk: An Updated 2024 Systematic Review Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies. medRxiv 2024, 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1539–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deeks, J.J.; Higgins, J.P.; Altman, D.G. on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group, Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 241–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, D.J.; Vine, S.J.; Wilson, M.R. Flow and quiet eye: The role of attentional control in flow experience. Cogn. Process. 2017, 18, 343–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amaro, C.M.; Amaro, A.M.; Gomes, B.B.; Castro, M.A.; Mendes, R. Effects of different basketball shooting positions and distances on gaze behavior and shooting accuracy. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esteves, P.; Arede, J.; Travassos, B.; Dicks, M. Gaze and shoot: Examining the effects of player height and attacker-defender interpersonal distances on gaze behavior and shooting accuracy of elite basketball players. J. Sport Psychol. 2021, 30, 1–8. Available online: https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/files/49833541/466_Article_Text_1199_1_10_20211227.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2023).
- Zhao, C.; Li, S.; Zhao, X. Empirical study on visual attention characteristics of basketball players of different levels during free-throw shooting. PeerJ 2023, 11, e16607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaughan, R.S.; Laborde, S. Attention, working-memory control, working-memory capacity, and sport performance: The moderating role of athletic expertise. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2021, 21, 240–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Maarseveen, M.J.; Savelsbergh, G.J.; Oudejans, R.R. In situ examination of decision-making skills and gaze behaviour of basketball players. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2018, 57, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steciuk, H.; Zwierko, T. Gaze behavior in basketball shooting: Preliminary investigations. Trends Sport Sci. 2015, 22, 89–94. [Google Scholar]
- Amaro, C.M.; Castro, M.A.; Mendes, R.; Gomes, B.B. Visual Fixations in Basketball Shooting: Differences between Shooting Conditions. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 3168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, G.; Wilson, M.R. Quiet-eye training for soccer penalty kicks. Cogn. Process. 2011, 12, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piras, A.; Vickers, J.N. The effect of fixation transitions on quiet eye duration and performance in the soccer penalty kick: Instep versus inside kicks. Cogn. Process. 2011, 12, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appelbaum, L.G.; Erickson, G. Sports vision training: A review of the state-of-the-art in digital training techniques. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2018, 11, 160–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ripoll, H.; Kerlirzin, Y.; Stein, J.-F.; Reine, B. Analysis of information processing, decision making, and visual strategies in complex problem solving sport situations. Hum. Mov. Sci. 1995, 14, 325–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hüttermann, S.; Noël, B.; Memmert, D. Eye tracking in high-performance sports: Evaluation of its application in expert athletes. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Sport 2018, 17, 182–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, D.L.; Spratford, W.; Abernethy, B. The head tracks and gaze predicts: How the world’s best batters hit a ball. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e58289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vine, S.J.; Wilson, M.R. The influence of quiet eye training and pressure on attention and visuo-motor control. Acta Psychol. 2011, 136, 340–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gegenfurtner, A.; Lehtinen, E.; Säljö, R. Expertise differences in the comprehension of visualizations: A meta-analysis of eye-tracking research in professional domains. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2011, 23, 523–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triolet, C.; Benguigui, N.; Le Runigo, C.; Williams, A.M. Quantifying the nature of anticipation in professional tennis. J. Sports Sci. 2013, 31, 820–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Classification | Basketball League Level | Training Frequency |
---|---|---|
Elite | Competing at the highest level globally in the most exclusive leagues. | 6–7 days per week (often multiple sessions per day) |
Competing at the international level, including professional leagues worldwide, reserve players in NBA/WNBA, NCAA Division I players, and national team representatives. | 5–7 days per week (structured periodized training) | |
Near-elite | Competing at the national level, including NCAA Division II and III, US high school varsity teams, and competitive community-based clubs. Participating in recreational basketball leagues, junior varsity teams, and non-professional competitions. | 4–6 days per week |
Amateur | No strict performance standard, but regular training and intent to compete required. | ~3 times per week |
Beginner | Playing basketball for fun or fitness without structured competition goals. | 1–3 times per week (non-structured) |
Individuals who do not engage in regular basketball activity and do not meet minimum physical activity guidelines. | No regular training |
Gaze Behavior | Definition | Stage of Action |
---|---|---|
QE Duration | The time from the onset of gaze stability to the end of the first observable movement in the shooting motion. | Preparation and early execution phase |
FFD | The duration of gaze fixation on the target immediately before the shooting motion begins, emphasizing final visual input and adjustments. | Final pre-shot phase |
FD | The total time spent fixating on relevant cues throughout the shooting process, reflecting overall visual engagement and attention allocation. | Entire shooting process |
Study | Criteria | Total | Rating | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |||
Czyż et al., 2019 [13] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 14 | Very good |
Harris et al., 2017 [39] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | Good |
Amaro et al., 2023 [40] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12 | Good |
Klostermann, 2019 [7] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 13 | Very good |
Esteves et al., 2021 [41] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | Very good |
Oudejans et al., 2002 [9] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 12 | Good |
Wilson et al., 2009 [21] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | Very good |
Klostermann et al., 2018 [20] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 12 | Good |
Zhao et al., 2023 [42] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | Good |
Rui et al., 2023 [8] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 13 | Very good |
Vaughan & Laborde, 2021 [43] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 13 | Very good |
Vickers, 1996 [5] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | Good |
Van Maarseveen et al., 2018 [44] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 13 | Very good |
Vickers et al., 2019 [6] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 14 | Very good |
Meyer et al., 2022 [19] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 12 | Good |
Zwierko et al., 2017 [3] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | Very good |
Steciuk & Zwierko, 2015 [45] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 12 | Good |
Study | Participants | Equipment | Study Design | Variable | Main Findings | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Age (Years) | Sex | Competition Levels | Gaze Behavior | Shooting Performance | ||||
Oudejans et al. (2002) [9] | 10 | 27.5 ± 10.5 | M | Elite | ETG | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | Final fixation duration (FFD) | Shooting accuracy (SA) (free throw and 3-point) | Full vision improved both FFD and SA (p < 0.001). |
Zwierko et al. (2017) [3] | 13 | 20.9 ± 2.4 | M | Elite | ETG | Between-subject design | Fixation duration (FD) | Shooting accuracy (SA) | Longer FD leads to higher SA (p < 0.05). |
Harris et al. (2017) [39] | 18 | 23.88 ± 7.56 | M/F | Elite | ETG | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | QE percentage; | shooting score | QE duration decreased significantly under pressure (p < 0.05). |
Amaro et al. (2023) [40] | 18 | 22 ± 3.72 | M/F | Elite | ETG | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | Fixation duration (FD) (free-throw and 3-point line) | Shooting score (free throw and 3-point line) | Closer distances led to longer FD and higher SA (p < 0.05). |
Esteves et al. (2021) [41] | 10 | 24.8 ± 4.52 | M | Elite | ETG | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | Fixation duration (FD) | Shooting accuracy (SA) | Taller players demonstrated better backboard SA (p < 0.05). |
Van Maarseveen et al. (2018) [10] | 13 | 16.8 ± 1.8 | F | Elite | ETG | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | Final fixation duration (FFD) | Shooting accuracy (SA) (Jump shot) | Defensive pressure reduced FFD and SA (p < 0.05). |
Steciuk & Zwierko (2015) [45] | 6 | 22 ± 3 | F | Near-elite | ETS | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | Fixation duration (FD), QE duration | Shooting accuracy (SA) (jump shot) | FD were longer for successful shots (p < 0.05). |
Wilson et al.(2009) [21] | 10 | 20.3 0.9 | M | Near-elite | ETG | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | QE duration | Shooting accuracy (SA) | Pressure significantly reduced QE and SA (p < 0.05). |
Klostermann et al. (2019) [7] | 16 | 23.3 ± 6.4 | M/F | Near-elite | ETS | Single-case design (SCD) | QE duration | Shooting accuracy (SA)(free-throw) | Longer QE correlated with higher SA (p < 0.05). |
Vickers et al. (2019) [6] | 12 | 22.4 ± 2.2 | M/F | Near-elite | ETS | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | QE duration | Shooting accuracy (SA) | Longer QE during arm flexion led to higher SA. Defender reduced QE duration and SA. |
Vaughan & Laborde (2021) [43] | 168 | 18.9 ± 1.01 | M | Elite/Near-elite | Neuropsychological test | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | Rapid visual information, match to sample visual search, spatial span task | Shooting accuracy (SA) (free-throw) | Gaze behavior assessments linked to shooting performance (p < 0.05). |
Klostermann et al. (2018) [20] | 17 | 18.8 ± 0.06/17.7 ± 0.2 | M | Elite/Near-elite | ETS | Randomized controlled trial (RCT) | QE duration | Shooting accuracy (SA) | Elite had longer QE in defended scenarios, leading to better SA (p < 0.01). |
Vickers (1996) [5] | 16 | 22.4 ± 2.2 | F | Elite/Near-elite | ETS | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | QE duration | Shooting accuracy (SA) | Elite > near-elite in QE duration, FFD, and SA (p < 0.01). |
Zhao et al. (2023) [42] | 42 | 23.6/19.6 | F | Elite/Near-elite | ETG | Between-subject design | Fixation duration (FD (Free throw) | Elite > non-elite in FD and SA (p < 0.05). | |
Czyż et al. (2019) [13] | 20 | 21.8 ± 0.79 | M | Elite/Near-elite | ETS, ETG | Randomized controlled trial (RCT) | Fixation Duration (FD); | Shooting accuracy (SA) | Elite > near-elite in FD and SA (p < 0.05). Increase in FD led to higher SA. |
Meyer et al. (2022) [19] | 31 | 23 ± 3.13 | M/F | Elite/Near-elite | ETG | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | Fixations on the head rather than on the ball, hips, and legs | Shooting accuracy (SA) | Elite had higher SA compared to near-elite (p < 0.05). |
Rui et al. (2023) [8] | 20 | 15.2 ± 0.4 27.6 ± 3.7 | M/F | Elite/Near-elite | ETG | Cross-sectional design (CSD) | QE duration; final fixation duration (FFD) | Shooting accuracy (SA) | Younger players had shorter QE duration and accuracy than older players (p < 0.05). Youth group showed large differences in gaze behavior and SA and differed from professional players. |
Study | Participants | Variable | Main Findings | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Age (years) | Sex | Competition Level | Gaze Behavior | Shooting Performance | ||||
QE Duration (ms) | FFD (ms) | FD (ms) | SA (%) | ||||||
Oudejans et al. (2002) [9] | 10 | 27.5 ± 10.5 | M | Elite | -- | 353 ± 34 (no-vision) 357 ± 35 (full-vision) | -- | 17.5 ± 12.6 (no-vision) 61.5 ± 7.4 (full-vision) | Full vision improved both FFD and SA (p < 0.001). |
Zwierko et al. (2017) [3] | 13 | 20.9 ± 2.4 | M | Elite | -- | -- | 797.698 ± 508.770 (free throw) 355.547 ± 124.929 (jump shot) | 65.38% (free-throw) 48.37% (jump shot) | Free throws had a longer FD and a higher SA (p < 0.05). |
Harris et al. (2017) [39] | 18 | 23.88 ± 7.56 | M/F | Elite | QE percentage | Shooting score | QE duration decreased significantly under pressure (p < 0.05). | ||
Amaro et al. (2023) [40] | 18 | 22 ± 3.72 | M/F | Elite | -- | -- | 707.41 ± 345.45 (free throw) 532.64 ± 322.16 (3-point shot) | -- | Closer distances led to longer FD and higher SA (p < 0.05). |
Esteves et al. (2021) [41] | 10 | 24.8 ± 4.52 | M | Elite | -- | -- | 259.9 ± 153.06 (ball) 273.55 ± 161.96 (rim) 282.95 ± 190.3 (backboard) | 84 ± 4.47 (higher) 66.4 ± 6.22 (smaller) | Taller players demonstrated better backboard SA (p < 0.05). |
Van Maarseveen et al. (2018) [10] | 13 | 16.8 ± 1.8 | F | Elite | -- | 364 ± 191 (defended) 443 ± 221 (undefended) | -- | 52.2 ± 8.1 (undefended) 51.3 ± 15 (defended) | Defensive pressure reduced FFD and SA (p < 0.05) |
Steciuk & Zwierko (2015) [45] | 6 | 22 ± 3 | F | Near-elite | -- | -- | 916 ± 272 | -- | The FD was longer for successful shots (p < 0.05). |
Wilson et al. (2009) [21] | 10 | 20.3 ± 0.9 | M | Near-elite | -- | -- | -- | 68.6 ± 11.2 (undefended) 50.5 ± 5.07 (defended) | Defended reduced QE and SA (p < 0.05). |
Klostermann et al. (2019) [7] | 16 | 23.3 ± 6.4 | M/F | Near-elite | 764.7 ± 352 | -- | -- | 73.1 ± 12.2 | Longer QE correlated with higher SA (p < 0.05). |
Vickers et al. (2019) [6] | 12 | 22.4 ± 2.2 | M/F | Near-elite | Arm flexion: 311.10 ± 13.72 (undefended) 237.02 ± 9.47 (defended) Arm extension 168.58 ± 12.12 (undefended) 136.98 ± 6.73 (defended) | -- | -- | Undefended: 58% Defended: 50% | Longer QE during arm flexion led to higher SA. Defender reduced QE duration and SA. |
Klostermann et al. (2018) [20] | 7 | 17.7 ± 0.2 | M | Elite | 460.9 ± 45.8 (undefended) 452.4 ± 43.3 (defended) | -- | -- | 67 ± 7 (undefended) | Elite had a longer QE, leading to better SA (p < 0.01). |
10 | 18.8 ± 0.06 | Near-elite | 389.5 ± 51.1 (undefended) 431.9 ± 36.8 (defended) | -- | -- | 46.7 ± 8.5 (undefended) | |||
Vickers (1996) [5] | 8 | 21.3 ± 2.5 | F | E | 972 ± 780 | 1471 ± 951 | -- | 75 ± 6.3 | Elite > near-elite in QE duration, FFD and SA (p < 0.01). |
8 | 20.8 ± 4.7 | NE | 357 ± 401 | 865 ± 595 | -- | 42 ± 28.1 | |||
Rui et al. (2023) [8] | N = 20 | 15.2 ± 0.4 | M/F | Near-elite | 551 ± 230 (long) 504 ± 238 (middle) | 606 ± 195 (long) 564 ± 221 (middle) | -- | 33.6 ± 13.6 (long) 52 ± 10.5 (middle) | Youth group showed big differences in gaze behavior and SA and differed from elite. |
27.6 ± 3.7 | Elite | 600 ± 249 (long) 572 ± 233 (middle) | 663 ± 243 (Long) 663 ± 245 (Middle) | -- | 58.8 ± 9.8 (long) 69.2 ± 16.3 (middle) | ||||
Czyż et al. (2019) [13] | 9 | 21.8 ± 0.79 | M | Elite | -- | -- | 390 ± 50 | 27 ± 10.85 | An increase in FD led to higher SA. |
10 | 22.7 ± 1.42 | Near-elite | -- | -- | 360 ± 60 | 20 ± 11.3 |
Independent Variable | Dependent Variable | Correlation Coefficient | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
QE Duration | SA | 0.67 | 0.04 * |
FFD | SA | 0.55 | 0.03 * |
FD | SA | 0.67 | 0.82 |
Study | Participants | Variable | Main Findings | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Age (Years) | Sex | Competition Level | Gaze Behavior | Shooting Performance | ||||
QE Duration (ms) | FFD (ms) | FD (ms) | SA (%) | ||||||
Klostermann et al. (2018) [20] | 7 | 17.7 ± 0.2 | M | Elite | 460.9 ± 45.8 (undefended) 452.4 ± 43.3 (defended) | -- | -- | 67 ± 7 (undefended) | Elite had longer QE, leading to better SA (p < 0.01). |
10 | 18.8 ± 0.06 | Near-elite | 389.5 ± 51.1 (undefended) 431.9 ± 36.8 (defended) | -- | -- | 46.7 ± 8.5 (undefended) | |||
Vickers (1996) [5] | 8 | 21.3 ± 2.5 | F | Elite | 972 ± 780 | 1471 ± 951 | -- | 75 ± 6.3 | Elite > near-elite in QE duration, FFD and SA (p < 0.01). |
8 | 20.8 ± 4.7 | Near-elite | 357 ± 401 | 865 ± 595 | -- | 42 ± 28.1 | |||
Czyż et al. (2019) [13] | 9 | 21.8 ± 0.79 | M | Elite | --- | -- | 360 ± 60 | 27 ± 10.85 | Elite > near-elite in FD and SA (p < 0.05). |
10 | 22.7 ± 1.42 | Near-elite | --- | -- | 390 ± 50 | 20 ± 11.3 | |||
Zhao et al. (2023) [42] | 21 | 23.6 | F | Elite | -- | -- | 629 ± 93 (front area of basket) 563 ± 117 (top area of basket) 319 ± 84 (bottom) | -- | Elite > near-elite in FD and SA (p < 0.05). |
21 | 19.6 | Near-elite | -- | -- | 476 ± 56 (front area of basket) 365 ± 50 (top area of basket) 368 ± 57 (bottom) | -- | |||
Vaughan & Laborde (2021) [43] | 81 | 18.9 ± 1.01 | M | Elite | Rapid Visual Information, Match to Sample Visual Search, Spatial Span Task | 53.67 ± 6.37 | Gaze behavior assessments linked to shooting performance (p < 0.05). | ||
87 | Near-elite | 47.31 ± 6.28 | |||||||
Rui et al. (2023) [8] | 20 | 15.2 ± 0.4 | M/F | Near-elite | 551 ± 230 (long) 504 ± 238 (middle) | 606 ± 195 (long) 564 ± 221 (middle) | -- | 33.6 ± 13.6 (long) 52 ± 10.5 (middle) | Younger players had shorter gaze behavior and SA than older players (p < 0.05). |
27.6 ± 3.7 | Elite | 600 ± 249 (long) 572 ± 233 (middle) | 663 ± 243 (long) 663 ± 245 (middle) | 58.8 ± 9.8 (long) 69.2 ± 16.3 (middle) | |||||
Meyer et al. (2022) [19] | 15 | 23 ± 3.13 | M/F | Elite | Fixations on the head rather than on the ball, hips, and legs | 44.2 ± 13.94 | Elite players had higher SA compared to near-elite (p < 0.05). | ||
16 | Near-elite | 31.1 ± 14 |
Metric | Number of Studies | Effect Size | z-Value | p-Value | 95% CI | I2 (%) | Q-Value | p-Value for Heterogeneity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
QE Duration | 5 | 0.58 | 2.55 | 0.01 * | 0.15, 1.01 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.4471 |
FFD | 3 | 0.43 | 1.56 | 0.12 | −0.10, 0.97 | 0.0% | 0.00 | 0.7860 |
FD | 4 | 0.98 | 1.35 | 0.18 | −0.44, 2.41 | 93.0% | 1.9605 | <0.0001 |
Variable | Estimate | Std. Error | z-Value | p-Value | 95% CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | −2.0446 | 0.9083 | −2.251 | 0.0244 * | −3.8249, −0.2644 |
QE duration on SA | 0.0034 | 0.0014 | 2.4507 | 0.0143 * | 0.0007, 0.0060 |
Gaze Behavior | Elite vs. Near-Elite [95% CI], p-Value | Data Analysis Results | Systematic Review Results |
---|---|---|---|
QE Duration | 2.55 [0.15, 1.01], p = 0.01 | Elite athletes exhibited significantly longer QE durations, strongly linked to higher SA (p = 0.0143). | Younger players (<18 years) had greater variability in QE durations. Adult: The same as the data analysis results. |
FFD | 1.56 [−0.10, 0.97], p = 0.12 | Positive SA correlation, but no significant difference between competition levels. | Younger players (<18 years) showed greater variability in FFD. Adult: The same as the data analysis results. |
FD | 1.35 [−0.44, 2.41], p = 0.18 | No significant relationship with SA or competition-level differences. | More experienced players exhibited longer FD, reflecting more advanced SA. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Han, M.; Arede, J.; Gómez Ruano, M.Á.; Lorenzo Calvo, J. The Role of Gaze Behavior in Basketball Shooting Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elite and Near-Elite Players. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 3871. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15073871
Han M, Arede J, Gómez Ruano MÁ, Lorenzo Calvo J. The Role of Gaze Behavior in Basketball Shooting Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elite and Near-Elite Players. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(7):3871. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15073871
Chicago/Turabian StyleHan, Miaoyu, Jorge Arede, Miguel Ángel Gómez Ruano, and Jorge Lorenzo Calvo. 2025. "The Role of Gaze Behavior in Basketball Shooting Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elite and Near-Elite Players" Applied Sciences 15, no. 7: 3871. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15073871
APA StyleHan, M., Arede, J., Gómez Ruano, M. Á., & Lorenzo Calvo, J. (2025). The Role of Gaze Behavior in Basketball Shooting Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elite and Near-Elite Players. Applied Sciences, 15(7), 3871. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15073871