Back to all available

Neural efficiency and training- induced plasticity in female basketball players: evidence from resting-state and task-based EEG

neuroscience
cognitive-disorders
kinesiology
human-computer-interaction
sports-medicine

Abstract

Background: Long-term sport training and targeted cognitive interventions are thought to shape brain activity; this study explores the neural mechanisms of expertise and training-induced plasticity in female basketball players.

Methods: Resting-state EEG was recorded from 48 expert female basketball players and novices under eyes-closed and eyes-open conditions. Power spectral density (PSD) was estimated using the Welch method, and between-group differences were assessed with Independent Samples t-tests. 56 novice female basketball players were randomly assigned to an intervention group or a control group. The intervention group underwent nine weeks of multiple object tracking (MOT) training. During a basketball-specific decision-making task, EEG recordings were obtained to evaluate training-related changes in ERP components.

Results: At rest, experts exhibited significantly lower PSD in delta and theta bands and higher PSD in alpha and beta bands compared with novices, particularly in prefrontal and parietal regions, reflecting enhanced neural efficiency and cognitive control. Following training, the intervention group of novices demonstrated significant improvements in decision-making accuracy. ERP analyses revealed reduced amplitudes of early sensory (P1, N1) and late cognitive components (LPC), along with increased LNC amplitude, indicating more effective allocation of cognitive resources during decision-making.

Conclusions: Long-term sport-specific training optimizes resting brain function, while targeted visual attention training enhances decision-making efficiency in novices.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].