Comparison of Retinal Sensitivity between Professional Soccer Players and Non-athletes

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare the peripheral retinal sensitivity of the visual field between professional soccer players and age-gender matched non-athlete subjects. All participants underwent a complete eye evaluation. The visual field was evaluated with the achromatic program 60–4 from the Humphrey automated perimetry. The binocular visual field was created with the best location model. It was divided into 4 quadrants (left superior, right superior, left inferior, and right inferior) and compared between groups. The study group comprised 29 professional male football players and the control group comprised 26 age-matched male non-athletes. Mean age was 25.8±4.7 years in the study group and 26.3±5.1 for controls. The average of retina sensitivity in the left inferior and right inferior quadrants was higher in the study group (27.2±1.2 dB and 27.0±1.4 dB) as compared to controls (26.1±1.9 dB and 25.5±2.1 dB). (Student’s t test, P=0.011 and P=0.004, respectively). In this small cohort, professional soccer players presented higher retina sensitivity in the inferior quadrants when compared to non-athletes.

Key words

visual field - automated perimetry - retina sensitivity - soccer players

• References

• 1 Abernethy B. Review: selective attention in fast ball sports II: Expert-Novice differences. Aust J Sci Med Sport 1987; 19: 7-16
• 2 Andersen GJ, Ni R, Bowder JD, Watanabe T. Perceptual learning, aging, and improved visual performance in early stages of visual processing. J Vis 2010; 10: 4
• 3 Ando S, Kida N, Oda S. Central and peripheral visual reaction time of soccer players and nonathletes. Percept Mot Skills 2001; 92: 786-794
• 4 Ando S, Yamada Y, Tanaka T, Oda S, Kokubu M. Reaction time to peripheral visual stimuli during exercise under normoxia and hyperoxia. Eur J Appl Physiol 2009; 106: 61-69
• 5 Crabb DP, Viswanathan AC. Integrated visual fields: a new approach to measuring the binocular field of view and visual disability. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005; 243: 210-216
• 6 Di Russo F, Martínez A, Hillyard SA. Source Analysis of Event-related Cortical Activity during Visuo-spatial Attention. Cereb Cortex 2003; 13: 486-499
• 7 Du Toit PJ, Kruger PE, Chamane NZ, Champer J, Crafford D. Sport vision assessment in soccer players. Afr J Phys Health Educ Recreat Dance 2009; 15: 594-604
• 8 Gibson EJ. Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Meredith; 1969
• 9 Gilbert CD. Early perceptual learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1994; 91: 1195-1197
• 10 Ferreira JT. Sports vision as a hardware and software system. Eyesight 2002; 40
• 11 Godnig EC. Body Alarm and Reaction – Sports vision. J Behav Optom 2001; 12: 3-6
• 12 Gravriysky V. From the practice: vision and sporting results. J Sports Med 1970; 10: 260-264
• 13 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research: 2014 Update. Int J Sports Med. 2013 34. 1025-1028
• 14 Karni A, Sagi D. Where practice makes perfect in texture discrimination: Evidence for primary visual cortex plasticity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1991; 88: 4966-4970
• 15 Lee DN, Lishman JR. Visual proprioceptive control of stance. J Hum Movement Stud 1975; 1: 87-92
• 16 Ludeke A, Ferreira JT. The difference in visual skills between professionals versus non-professional rugby players. S Afr Optom 2003; 62: 150-158
• 17 Mehta AD, Ulbert I, Schroeder CE. Intermodal selective attention in monkeys. I: Distribution and timing of effects across visual areas. Cereb Cortex 2000; 10: 343-358
• 18 Mizusawa K, Sweeting RL, Knouse SB. Comparative studies of color fields, visual acuity fields, and movement perception limits among varsity athletes and non-varsity groups. Percept Mot Skills 1983; 56: 887-892
• 19 Muiños M, Ballesteros S. Peripheral vision and perceptual asymmetries in young and older martial arts athletes and nonathletes. Atten Percept Psychophys 2014; 76: 2465-2476
• 20 Notarnicola A, Maccagnano G, Pesce V, Tafuri S, Novielli G, Moretti B. Visual- spatial capacity: gender and sport differences in young volleyball and tennis athletes and non-athletes. BMC Res Notes 2014; 7: 57
• 21 Smythies J. A note on the concept of the visual field in neurology, psychology, and visual neuroscience. Perception 1996; 25: 369-371
• 22 Spector HR. Visual Fields. In: Walker HK, Hall WD, Hurst JW. (eds.) Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. Boston: Butterworths; 1990: 116
• 23 Stine CD, Arterburn MR, Stern NS. Vision and sports: a review of the literature. J Am Optom Assoc 1982; 53: 627-633
• 24 Tergerson RL. The relationship of selected measures of wrist strength, vision, and general motor ability to badminton playing ability. Unpublished. Master’s Thesis, University of North Carolina 1964
• 25 Voss M, Kramer AF, Prakash RS, Roberts B, Basak C. Are expert athletes “expert” in the cognitive laboratory? A meta-analytic review of cognition and sport expertise. Appl Cogn Psychol 2009; 24: 812-826
• 26 Wei G, Zhang Y, Jiang T, Luo J. Increased cortical thickness in sports experts: a comparison of diving players with the controls. PLoS One 2011; 6: e17112
• 27 Weijland A, Fankhauser F, Bebie H, Flammer J. (eds.) Automated Perimetry – Visual Field Digest.Koniz: Haag -Streit AG. 2004: 12
• 28 Zwierko T. Differences in peripheral perception between athletes and nonathletes. J Hum Kinet 2007; 19: 53-62
• 29 Zwierko T, Lubiński W, Lesiakowski P, Steciuk H, Piasecki L, Krzepota J. Does athletic training in volleyball modulate the components of visual evoked potentials? A preliminary investigation. J Sport Sci 2014; 32: 1519-1528