| 英文摘要 |
TIntroduction: The focus of competitive sports is nothing more than the superior athletic skills and physical performance. However, how can athletes precisely control their body to achieve their expert performance? To further address this issue, there has thus been increasing research devoting to explore the neurocognitive mechanisms that support sporting success. Despite that a great deal of evidence has shown that athletes can outperform non-athletic controls on a variety of cognitive tasks involving attention, working memory or decision-making, current findings are still inconclusive. This is probably due to the differences in task design (e.g., the expert performance approach and the component skills approach) across research and some important factors (e.g., physical fitness or physical activity) that haven’t been considered in previous investigations. Accordingly, there is a need to further discuss this issue. Methods: In this narrative review, we scrutinize the recent empirical research regarding athletes and their superior cognitive and brain functions. We firstly summarize research findings at both behavioral and neural levels and integrate the results from different experimental designs. Second, we discuss the potential influences of physical-exercise-related factors (e.g., aerobic fitness and physical activity level) on the association between athletes and cognitive functions. Third, based on the findings of current literatures, we propose research and practical suggestions for future research and training works. Results: In general, data from most studies suggested that athletes can show superiority in both sport-specific decision-making and fundamental cognitive functioning. Besides, the neuroimaging data revealed that athletes, as compared to nonathletic controls, showed less brain activity when performing sport-specific tasks, while they were able to effectively allocate greater activity during fundamental cognitive tasks. These research findings may reflect the neural efficiency in sport-specific decision-making and higher neural effectiveness in fundamental cognitive processing, respectively. The relationship between the two experimental designs, however, has thus far remained unclear. It is therefore warranted for future investigations to examine the relation of sporting decision-making to fundamental cognitions, which may help better understand the transferring effect of athletic training to fundamental cognitions. In addition, the physical-exercise-related factors may be potential causes that affect cognitive functions in athletes because a great number of studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of physical fitness or physical activity on fundamental cognitive functions. That is, future studies should try to control the potential confounding effect of physical-exercise-related factors on the cognitive functioning in athletes. Conclusion: Taken together, the present article further discuss the complex relationship between athletes and cognitions, and the suggestions for future research and athletic training are proposed. In terms of research implications, we suggest that future studies should include physical-exercise-related factors, both fundamental and sport-specific task designs, and longitudinal approaches. On the other hand, for the practical implications, we propose that the athletic training, in particular for a sport requiring complex cognitive skills, could include sport-related cognitive components or employ a computerized cognitive training to directly improve a specific cognitive function that is important in a sport (e.g., temporal preparation in tennis). Importantly, given the relationship between cognitive functions and athletic performance, it is worth using cognitive tests for a talent selection in sports.hrough literature review, this article investigates the origin and the development of sociology of sport, along with the progress of relevant theories of the field, and further tries to sum up the main issues so as to make understanding of the subject from different perspectives. As this article suggests, sociology of sport emerged in the twentieth century, the theory application and development of which were deeply influenced by some of the pioneers from the field of sociology. As for research issues, this article concludes that there are at least 13 categories of main issues, including “sociology of sport and sociological theories”, “sport and history”, “sport and youth”, “sport and socialization”, “sport and deviation”, “sport and gender”, “sport and ethnicity”, “sport and social class”, “sport and economy”, “sport and media”, “sport, politics and power”, “sport and education”, “sport and religion”. Different from the development of sociology of sport internationally, the early development of sociology of sport in Taiwan was influenced by returning scholars from Japan in the field, whose leading was then taken over by those coming back from the U.S. or European countries, as well as some of the local scholars. Additionally, main journals in the field of sport in Taiwan accept articles of sociology of sport mostly under topics of “sport and socialization”, “sport and gender”, and “sport, politics and power”. Finally, according to some of the world famous scholars’ observation and the current conditions of Taiwan, both international sociology of sport and sociology of sport in Taiwan are facing challenges from natural sciences, mainstream sociology and sociology of sport itself. Reviewing the development of sociology of sport internationally and reflecting on Taiwan, this article suggests that sociology of sport in Taiwan should start from tackling the challenge from the subject itself. Steps such as attracting talented scholars from either sociology or other fields, improving research quality, expanding research scope as well as enhancing the application and development of theories are suggested to be taken so as to avoid the double marginalization dilemma. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
