General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Key decision-makers among experts in a given field can sometimes be identified based on their role and responsibilities. The aim of the study is to compare perceptual-cognitive skills of experts with decisional responsibilities (setters in volleyball) with that of other volleyball experts. Eighty-two participants (26 setters, 36 other players and 20 controls) viewed 50 volleyball video sequences. Sequences stopped 120 ms before ball contact and participants, whose eye movements were recorded, had to predict the ball direction. Generalized Estimating Equations analysis revealed that setters and controls made more but shorter fixations than other players. However, both expert groups made better predictions than controls. Dynamics analyses of eye movements over time show that, right before ball contact, opposing players’ upper body is a most relevant attentional cue in all game situations. Results are discussed in terms of decision-making responsibilities to identify key decision-makers in volleyball and in general. They point towards specific perceptual-cognitive abilities found in setters and support the idea that they constitute a subgroup of experts, but that they are not “better” than other players in anticipating the game.

The first scientific papers on sport psychology consultants (SPCs) focused primarily on the professional practice of experienced SPCs. Since then, the scientific literature on SPCs has greatly diversified. The purpose of this review is to summarize and critically examine the findings of three scientifically studied topics on SPCs: SPCs' experiences, perceptions toward SPCs, and SPCs' effectiveness. Peer-reviewed scientific articles published in English were found in the main sport and psychology databases. The primary results in relation to each topic and the limitations of these papers are presented. The discussion examines future avenues from which to develop research on SPCs. Since Norman Triplett's first publication on the social facilitation of cyclists in 1897, the scientific study of sport psychology has greatly diversified. One aspect that has emerged from this field focuses on sport psychology consultants (SPCs) and their work. There are two main definitions of SPCs in the scientific literature. They can be seen as complementary because one focuses on the training requirements to become a SPC and the other on their role in applied sport psychology. Morris, Alfermann, Litunen, and Hall (2003) defined a SPC as a person trained in both psychology and sport science. Donohue et al. (2004) as well as Wrisberg, Simpson, Loberg, Withycombe, and Reed (2009) defined a SPC rather as a person who, during sport psychology consultations, supports athletes and coaches (stakeholders 1) in their development of mental and emotional skills with the aim to achieve optimal performance and improved well-being. A SPC might therefore be defined as a person who is trained in both psychology and sport and exercise science and who provides psychological support to stakeholders involved in sport. Note that, in addition to the term SPC, different terms in the

No abstract

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Paralympic swimmers with vision impairment (VI) currently compete in one of the three classes depending on their visual acuity (VA) and/or visual field. However, there is no evidence to suggest that a three-class system is the most legitimate approach for classification in swimming, or that the tests of VA and visual field are the most suitable. An evidence-based approach is required to establish the relationship between visual function and performance in the sport. Therefore, the aim of this study was to establish the relationship between visual function and performance in VI Para swimming. The swimming performance of 45 elite VI swimmers was evaluated during international competitions by measuring the total race time, start time, clean swim velocity, ability to swim in a straight line, turn time, and finish time. Visual function was measured using a test battery that included VA, contrast sensitivity, light sensitivity, depth perception, visual search, and motion perception. Results Results revealed that VA was the best predictor of total race time (r = 0.40, p < 0.01), though the relationship was not linear. Decision tree analysis suggested that only two classes were necessary for legitimate competition in VI swimming, with a single cut-off between 2.6 and 3.5 logMAR. No further significant association remained between visual function and performance in either of the two resulting classes (all |rs|< 0.11 and ps > 0.54). Conclusions Results suggest that legitimate competition in VI swimming requires one class for partially sighted and another for functionally blind athletes.