A quick cookie question 🍪
By the way, can we use a tracker to see where you came from and measure our ads? Are you okay with that? Learn more
Football scanning, 46 studies: a small but real link with passing; visual training improves the task, with no demonstrated transfer to matches.
The RNP training space, free for life
Get access to RNP training, no strings attached.
In brief. Scanning in football, those head rotations before receiving the ball, goes hand in hand with better passing success, but the effect is small and mixed up with opposition pressure. Visual training mostly improves the trained task; no trial analyzed measures a gain in an official match. 46 studies, out of an inventory of 155. Updated November 3, 2026.
Hello to you, the movement professional,
In Norway, four top-division midfielders played two 11-a-side matches, an internal match and a friendly, with a mobile eye tracker on their nose. The team of Karl Marius Aksum and Geir Jordet wanted to see from the inside the gesture spotted from the stands: the player who turns his head before receiving. Across 869 scans, the average duration comes to 0.40 seconds, and only 2.3% contain a fixation at the usual detection threshold of 120 milliseconds (Aksum et al., 2021). The midfielder who "reads the game" sweeps, almost never fixating in the sense the laboratory understands it.
Two questions for the trainer: what does the scan pick up if the eye does not stop, and can it be trained so that it shows on Saturday? The most serious objection fits in one sentence: among the trials gathered here, none has shown that visual training makes a footballer play better in an official match.
The Norwegian group defines the scan as an active head movement that briefly turns the face away from the ball to gather information before playing it (Jordet et al., 2020). It is also called visual exploration. Three instruments measure it, and they do not capture the same thing.
Video, coded frame by frame, counts head rotations in the ten seconds preceding reception. Inertial measurement units fixed on the head measure rotation speed; in twelve university players in 6-a-side, a threshold of 250 degrees per second matches video coding (agreement 0.932), whereas the threshold of 125 degrees per second overestimates scans (Kokubu et al., 2026). Mobile eye tracking shows what the eye does: in matches, the fixations of five Norwegian midfielders are shorter than in the laboratory (Aksum et al., 2020). With a 360-degree headset, eleven sub-elite players scan at 0.31 per second (median), eleven novices at 0.06 (Feist et al., 2025).
This move toward the field is recent: a review of 38 studies, all based on recording eye movements, found none on exploration in open play (McGuckian et al., 2018). The puzzle of the scan without fixation remains. Aksum et al. judge the 120-millisecond threshold too high for the field and propose lowering it, which would bring out markedly more fixations; one lead, not tested in these studies, is peripheral vision, which can be brought closer to the dorsal stream of vision, the one that locates and guides action.
The reference study filmed 27 players from a Premier League club over 21 matches, or 9,574 possessions. They scan on average 0.44 times per second before reception, central midfielders and center-backs more than forwards, and less when the opponent is very close. The ball is kept after 0.46 scans per second, lost after 0.37; a successful pass follows 0.46 scans per second, a missed pass 0.40. The differences are small (effect sizes of 0.20 and 0.15). Once the difficulty of the pass is taken into account, the authors' model estimates, as a mean value, a positive effect in about 86% of players, and they speak of "a small, but positive role" (Jordet et al., 2020). The project was partly funded by the club.
Study | Population (n) | What was measured | Result | Level of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
27 Premier League pros, 9,574 possessions | Scans per second, context, success | Positive, small link with passing | Moderate, a single club | |
35 midfielders from Euro 2016 | Scan frequency, passes, turnovers | Scanning explains 3 to 4% of the variance in passing success | Low | |
53 players from the 2018 U17 and U19 Euros, 1,686 situations | Scans by age, position, pressure | U19 above U17, positive link with passing | Low | |
239 players from four youth Euros, 17 matches | Models of scanning | Link with passing and body orientation; pressure weighs heavily | Low | |
162 players, 2019 U17 and U21 Euros | Direction of the last scan | It predicts the foot of the first touch | Low | |
32 semi-elite players, 783 actions | Head rotations by inertial unit | More rotations, more forward play and turns | Low | |
22 elite youth players, 1,623 minutes | Exploration by phase and zone | More in possession, less in transition | Low | |
18 award-winning players against 18 teammates, Champions League | Matched scanning and performance | No difference | Low, cleanest comparison |
These data are all observational. Opposition pressure lowers both scanning and success, and causality can run in reverse: the player who has time can afford to scan. The direction of the last scan, for its part, seems to prepare the oriented control, which ties in with work on spatial orientation and anticipation. The Gibson framework, on which Pokolm et al. rely, makes scanning a search for what the game offers to action, the perception-action coupling. It remains to be seen what the best players look at when they stop on the image.
A frequently cited rule says that the expert makes fewer, longer fixations. Football shows that it depends on the task. In 24 players facing filmed sequences, the most experienced do not search differently in 3-on-3; in 1-on-1, on the contrary, they make more, shorter fixations, and look longer at the dribbler's hips (Williams and Davids, 1998). In 40 young players aged 13 to 15, the best decision makers fixate the ball carrier more and alternate more often between him and the rest of the scene (Vaeyens et al., 2007a), and the number of players on screen, like the proportion of attackers and defenders, changes the strategy (Vaeyens et al., 2007b). More short fixations also means more eye saccades to link the points of information.
On corners frozen just before, during and just after the kick, 23 skilled players predict the landing zone better than 23 less skilled ones, and they rely on the attackers' positioning rather than on the taker (Ivosevic and Stöckel, 2025). In 40 players, a wider peripheral field goes with faster passing decisions, the link with accuracy being weaker (Ivosevic and Stöckel, 2026). In eleven children aged 8 to 10, the weakest performers on a passing test look more at the ball while handling it (Vansteenkiste et al., 2022). Expertise shows in what the player chooses to look at depending on the task.
Measured in professionals, basic visual functions say less about playing level than about what deserves checking. In 147 professionals, dynamic visual acuity varies by position, lower in forwards, and only a quarter of the players who would need correction wear it while playing (Jorge and Fernandes, 2019). In 107 professionals, 36.4% show at least one binocular vision disorder according to the authors' optometric criteria (Jorge et al., 2022). Professional and amateur footballers do no better than non-footballers on stereopsis tests (Paulus et al., 2014).
A meta-analysis of 22 studies and 1,113 team-sport athletes finds clear correlations between performance and multiple object tracking (r = 0.54), moderate with visual search (r = 0.36), null with depth perception (r = 0.09), while judging the quality of the evidence limited (Yang et al., 2026). A correlation says who succeeds, without saying what to train.
Study | Population (n) | Published protocol | Measure | Result | Transfer to the field | Level of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
U19 female players, 61 recruited, 36 analyzed | 5 weeks, 1 to 2 sessions per week of small-sided games and scanning-centered drills, allocation by team | Scans per situation in 4-on-4 | Scans up, in elites only, maintained at three weeks; difference between groups not significant | Measured and null on success | Low | |
22 U16-U17 players | Virtual reality, 3 sessions per week, 7 weeks, on top of training | Scans and passes in small-sided games | Scans clearly up; passes not significant between groups after correction | Measured, uncertain | Low to moderate | |
26 young players | 8 weeks, virtual reality versus video screen | Passing decision, visual search | Both improve, virtual reality more | Not measured | Moderate | |
Review of 10 studies | Video training | Anticipation, decision | 8 studies out of 10 positive | Rarely measured | Low to moderate | |
22 players | Stroboscopic glasses during a warm-up with ball, one session | Reactive agility, with and without ball | Gain with dribbling, maintained under fatigue; nothing without ball | Field test, acute effect | Moderate to low | |
36 university players | 6 weeks, 3 sessions per week of football tasks, stroboscopic glasses versus clear lenses | Reaction, reactive agility | All five measures improve more | Field test | Moderate to low | |
28 matched players | 8 weeks of stroboscope | Object tracking, anticipation, decision | Anticipation alone better | Not measured | Low to moderate | |
38 elite youth players aged 12 and 13 | 20 min per week, 8 weeks, football task and juggling | Peripheral reaction time on computer | Progress in the trained group | Not measured | Low | |
24 pro or academy players, men and women | 2 sessions of 30 min per week, 6 weeks, under modulated lighting | Dynamic acuity, reaction, periphery | Several gains; neither stereopsis nor anticipation | Not measured | Moderate to low | |
32 U16 players | Cognitive and motor dual task, 24 integrated sessions of 10 to 15 min | Dribbling and passing tests, cognition | All variables improve | Field tests | Low to moderate | |
33 young footballers | Phone game, 5 min per day, 5 days per week, 8 weeks | Executive functions | No effect, except one response time | Not measured | Low to moderate | |
31 university players, including 16 women | 3D-MOT, 10 sessions over 4 weeks | Passing decision on video | Trained task improved, decision unchanged | Measured and null | Moderate | |
62 academy players | 3D-MOT as a dual task | Small-sided games, attention test | No near or far transfer | Measured and null | Moderate | |
20 players | Quiet eye on penalties, 7 weeks, versus placebo | Accuracy, goalkeeper saves | More accurate and half as many saved at retention; advantage lost under pressure | Measured, partial | Moderate | |
2 groups of 40 university players | 15 min of mindfulness | Fixations, penalty score | Longer fixations, penalties unchanged | Measured and null | Moderate |
"Heads Up Girls!" is one of the rare field interventions on scanning. Allocation was by team, without randomization, and only 36 players out of 61 met the analysis criteria. Scanning goes from 0.88 to 1.44 per situation in the trained group, but also from 0.61 to 0.92 in controls, and the interaction between group and time is not significant (p = 0.203). The increase holds three weeks later in 31 players. Across the whole sample, the share of successful actions after a scan even tends to fall, from 74.3% to 67.1%, without the difference being significant (Hintermann et al., 2025). The published block combined small-sided games, 4-on-4 with a neutral player or goalkeepers, and small-group drills: this is the principle of representative design, training in a task that resembles the game.
In virtual reality, the only randomized trial in this inventory that measures scanning raises pre-reception scans from 18 to 43 as a group mean, against a control group that stayed with usual training. The trained group improves on some passes, but its advantage over the controls does not survive statistical correction; the trial was registered after the fact (Erişik et al., 2025). The comparison between virtual reality and decision-making on screen is covered separately. Scanning behavior changes, at least over a few weeks; passing does not follow in any demonstrated way.
Stroboscopic glasses interrupt vision intermittently. In a warm-up, a single exposure improves reactive agility with dribbling in 22 players (effect size 0.57), even when fatigued, with no effect without the ball (Zwierko et al., 2024). Over six weeks, against clear lenses and with blinded assessors, all five reaction and agility measures improve more, and the authors write that retention and transfer to the match remain to be established (Weng et al., 2026a). In 84 amateurs, the same constraint costs the best passers 11.1% of accuracy against 1.9% for the weaker ones (Beavan et al., 2021): it destabilizes the most skilled first.
On the lights side, reaction speed to a light panel is only weakly linked to reactive agility against a human tester in 44 players (Broodryk et al., 2025), a reminder that the motor reaction time measured against a light says little about the reaction against an opponent. The modulated-lighting trial by Rodrigues et al. counts among its authors an employee and a shareholder of the manufacturer, and measures no game criterion. Dual task built into training improves dribbling and passing tests (Ramírez Lucas et al., 2025), whereas a phone game, out of context, changes nothing (Heilmann et al., 2023).
Two balance trials under stroboscope in university footballers, men and women (Lu et al., 2025; Diao et al., 2026) report effect sizes reaching up to 3.7 and 4.0, and share the same registration number, filed after the fact: they are not used as evidence.
Three-dimensional multiple object tracking (3D-MOT) has you follow several moving spheres among decoys. In 31 randomly assigned university players, ten sessions over four weeks improve the task, with no effect on the quality of passing decisions (Harenberg et al., 2022). In 62 academy players, the dual-task version improves on itself, with no transfer to an attention test or to small-sided games (Romeas et al., 2025); one of the authors co-founded the company that sells the tool, which makes the null result all the more telling. In elite young footballers aged 17 to 21, ten weeks of single-task 3D-MOT improve the task, with negligible transfer to other visual and executive functions (Scharfen and Memmert, 2021). The detail is found in the satellite article on 3D multiple object tracking.
The most useful thing is to sort each result by the distance between the exercise and the game. Near transfer, to a task that resembles the exercise, is frequent: 3D-MOT, reaction to light, scans in small-sided games. Intermediate transfer, to a played but framed task, exists: reactive agility with the ball under stroboscope, dribbling tests after dual task, penalty accuracy at retention. Far transfer, the official 11-a-side match, was measured by none of the controlled trials cited here. The null trials are named above: Harenberg 2022, Romeas 2025, Heilmann 2023, Wu 2025 on score, Hintermann 2025 on success, Erişik 2025 on passing between groups.
Two recent reviews go in this direction. One concludes that training consistently improves targeted laboratory measures, with weaker and more uncertain transfer to the field (Weng et al., 2026b); the other, covering 20 virtual reality studies in student footballers, judges the evidence promising but preliminary (Park et al., 2026). We find again the logic of transfer from training to the field, with a hypothesis that these data make plausible without demonstrating it: the more an exercise separates perception from action, the less it carries down into the game.
Study A | Relation | Study B |
|---|---|---|
Caso 2025 | nuances | Jordet 2020: scanning goes with passing within a team, without distinguishing award-winning players from their teammates |
Aksum 2021b, Pokolm 2022, Pokolm 2023 | samples probably partly shared | same youth Euros of 2018 and 2019 |
Jordet 2020, McGuckian 2018 (cohort) and 2020, Pokolm 2022 and 2023, Aksum 2020 and 2021 | same author network | Geir Jordet co-signs all these studies |
Harenberg 2022, Romeas 2025 | do not replicate | an earlier positive result of 3D-MOT on passing decisions |
Yang 2026 (r = 0.54 for object tracking) | contrasts with | Harenberg 2022 and Romeas 2025 (no transfer) |
Zwierko 2024 | converges with ball, diverges without ball | Weng 2026a, which also improves reactive agility without the ball (six weeks against one session) |
Broodryk 2025 | nuances | Schumacher 2020 and Rodrigues 2025 (reaction measured out of context) |
Wood 2011 | responds to | Wilson 2009: under anxiety, 14 shooters fixate the goalkeeper more and shoot more centrally |
Lu 2025 | same registration as | Diao 2026 |
The strongest convergence concerns the description of scanning, and the most fragile its training. A large part of the scanning literature comes from the same network of researchers and the same youth tournaments, which limits the independence of replications. On the penalty taker's side, the trial by Wood and Wilson targets precisely the gaze that breaks down under threat described by Wilson et al. (2009). The goalkeeper's gaze and the assistant referee's decision have their own satellites.
Established: scanning can be measured in matches, by video as well as by inertial sensor, it varies with pressure, zone and position, and the expert looks differently depending on the task. Debated: the link between scanning and passing, real but small, mixed with pressure and perhaps reversed. Extrapolation: that training scanning, or isolated visual functions, makes you play better in a match. Nobody can promise you that a player who scans more will pass better, and the number of scans is not a performance indicator.
One prediction allows a verdict. If a team-randomized trial, in an academy, compares constrained small-sided games with practice of the same volume, takes as its criterion the quality of on-the-ball actions in an official match, with retention at two months, and finds no difference, the idea that scanning is usefully trained through play falls. That is the trial that is missing.
The share of binocular vision disorders found in professionals (Jorge et al., 2022) recalls the order of things. If your athlete reports double vision, a blur that persists, headaches on exertion or dizziness, visual training waits. They see an ophthalmologist first, then an orthoptist in France, or an optometrist in Switzerland or the United States. LabO RNP is neither medical nor paramedical, and is an addition to a care pathway, never a replacement for it. LabO RNP works with optometrists; the curriculum was built with them.
The eyes are a doorway. What LabO RNP teaches is the whole sensorimotor loop: how what the athlete perceives organizes what he does, from postural control to the pass. Scanning gives a direct illustration, since the head turns, the body orients and the foot chooses before the ball even arrives. This is the territory of ecological motor learning. For the place of the eyes in the warm-up, read our article on oculomotor exercises in the warm-up; for the whole range of training families, the evidence map in sports vision.
It is an active head movement that briefly turns the face away from the ball to take in information before receiving it (Jordet et al., 2020). It is measured by video, by an inertial unit on the head or by a mobile eye tracker. In matches, a scan by an elite midfielder lasts about 0.40 seconds and rarely contains a detectable fixation (Aksum et al., 2021).
In 27 Premier League players, the average is 0.44 scans per second in the ten seconds before reception, with central midfielders and center-backs above forwards (Jordet et al., 2020). This figure describes a group: no study provides an individual norm to reach.
The cleanest comparison says no. Eighteen award-winning Champions League players, matched with eighteen teammates from the same line and the same match, differ neither in scanning nor in performance (Caso et al., 2025). Scanning remains a group landmark, not a selection criterion.
The number of scans rises clearly after seven weeks of virtual reality (Erişik et al., 2025), and in elite female players after five weeks of small-sided games centered on scanning, with no significant difference from controls (Hintermann et al., 2025). In both trials, the success of passes or actions does not improve significantly between groups. The behavior moves; its effect on the game remains to be demonstrated.
The stroboscope improves reactive agility with the ball in two trials, one on a single warm-up session (Zwierko et al., 2024), the other over six weeks (Weng et al., 2026), with no match measure. 3D-MOT improves on its own task, with no transfer to decision-making or to small-sided games (Harenberg et al., 2022; Romeas et al., 2025).
Yes. In 107 professionals, more than a third had a binocular vision disorder (Jorge et al., 2022). The ophthalmologist comes first, then the orthoptist or optometrist depending on the country. LabO RNP is neither medical nor paramedical, and is an addition to a care pathway, never a replacement for it.
Scanning is measured better than it is trained, and it is in the game that you check what you trained outside the game.
👉 I want to understand what my athlete perceives before correcting what he does.
By the LabO RNP team
Method. Inventory of 155 football studies built on November 3, 2026 from PubMed and the LabO RNP vault sheets, completed by targeted PubMed searches on scanning in matches; 46 studies retained here for their direct link with scanning, visual search, visual functions and outfield player training. Goalkeeping and refereeing are covered in dedicated satellites; concussion and heading are outside this silo. Excluded: studies with no available abstract or verified identifier. Two balance trials under stroboscope are cited with reservations. Every PMID and every DOI was checked against the PubMed record on November 3, 2026; one non-indexed study is cited by its DOI, checked on Crossref.
Aksum KM, Brotangen L, Bjørndal CT, Magnaguagno L, Jordet G (2021). Scanning activity of elite football players in 11 vs. 11 match play: An eye-tracking analysis on the duration and visual information of scanning. PLoS One, 16(8), e0244118. PMID 34415909. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244118
Aksum KM, Magnaguagno L, Bjørndal CT, Jordet G (2020). What Do Football Players Look at? An Eye-Tracking Analysis of the Visual Fixations of Players in 11 v 11 Elite Football Match Play. Front Psychol, 11, 562995. PMID 33178070. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562995
Aksum KM, Pokolm M, Bjørndal CT, Rein R, Memmert D, Jordet G (2021). Scanning activity in elite youth football players. J Sports Sci, 39(21), 2401-2410. PMID 34078235. doi:10.1080/02640414.2021.1935115
Beavan A, Hanke L, Spielmann J, Skorski S, Mayer J, Meyer T, Fransen J (2021). The effect of stroboscopic vision on performance in a football specific assessment. Sci Med Footb, 5(4), 317-322. PMID 35077302. doi:10.1080/24733938.2020.1862420
Broodryk A, Skala F, Broodryk R (2025). Light-Based Reaction Speed Does Not Predict Field-Based Reactive Agility in Soccer Players. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol, 10(3), 239. PMID 40700175. doi:10.3390/jfmk10030239
Caso S, McGuckian TB, van der Kamp J (2025). No evidence that visual exploratory activity distinguishes the super elite from elite football players. Sci Med Footb, 9(2), 172-180. PMID 38451112. doi:10.1080/24733938.2024.2325139
Diao X, Wei R, Cao J (2026). The effects of 12 weeks of Stroboscopic Visual Training (SVT) combined with agility training on the balance and change of direction performance in college-aged female soccer players. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil, 18(1), 220. PMID 41749382. doi:10.1186/s13102-026-01623-x
Erişik K, Cerrah AO, Cinarli FS (2025). Effects of virtual reality-based cognitive and technical drills on scanning and passing performance in youth football players: a randomized controlled study. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil, 17(1), 371. PMID 41444702. doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01425-7
Feist J, Datson N, Runswick OR, Pocock C (2025). Testing the validity of 360-video for analysing visual exploratory activity in soccer. J Sports Sci, online ahead of print, 1-14. PMID 41168672. doi:10.1080/02640414.2025.2580838
Fortes LS, Almeida SS, Praça GM, Nascimento-Júnior JRA, Lima-Junior D, Barbosa BT, Ferreira MEC (2021). Virtual reality promotes greater improvements than video-stimulation screen on perceptual-cognitive skills in young soccer athletes. Hum Mov Sci, 79, 102856. PMID 34391110. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2021.102856
Fortes LS, Faro H, Faubert J, Freitas-Júnior CG, Lima-Junior D, Almeida SS (2025). Repeated stroboscopic vision training improves anticipation skill without changing perceptual-cognitive skills in soccer players. Appl Neuropsychol Adult, 32(4), 1123-1137. PMID 37552715. doi:10.1080/23279095.2023.2243358
Harenberg S, McCarver Z, Worley J, Murr D, Vosloo J, Kakar RS, McCaffrey R, Dorsch K, Höner O (2022). The effectiveness of 3D multiple object tracking training on decision-making in soccer. Sci Med Footb, 6(3), 355-362. PMID 35862166. doi:10.1080/24733938.2021.1965201
Heilmann F, Formenti D, Trecroci A, Lautenbach F (2023). The effects of a smartphone game training intervention on executive functions in youth soccer players: a randomized controlled study. Front Sports Act Living, 5, 1170738. PMID 37601169. doi:10.3389/fspor.2023.1170738
Hintermann M, Romann M, Born DP, Taube W, Fuchslocher J (2025). "Heads Up Girls!" a training intervention to improve scanning behavior in youth female football. Front Sports Act Living, 7, 1602099. PMID 40655441. doi:10.3389/fspor.2025.1602099
Ivosevic L, Stöckel T (2025). Anticipation in soccer: skilled players benefit from early pattern recognition in corner kick situations. Front Psychol, 16, 1631208. PMID 40842615. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1631208
Ivosevic L, Stöckel T (2026). Peripheral vision as a key factor for decision-making in soccer. Front Psychol, 17, 1907506. PMID 42865354. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1907506
Jordet G, Aksum KM, Pedersen DN, Walvekar A, Trivedi A, McCall A, Ivarsson A, Priestley D (2020). Scanning, Contextual Factors, and Association With Performance in English Premier League Footballers: An Investigation Across a Season. Front Psychol, 11, 553813. PMID 33123039. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.553813
Jorge J, Fernandes P (2019). Static and dynamic visual acuity and refractive errors in elite football players. Clin Exp Optom, 102(1), 51-56. PMID 30054950. doi:10.1111/cxo.12812
Jorge J, Diaz-Rey A, Lira M (2022). Prevalence of binocular vision dysfunctions in professional football players. Clin Exp Optom, 105(8), 853-859. PMID 34886745. doi:10.1080/08164622.2021.2002667
Kokubu M, Natsuhara T, Koido M, Mieda T, Matsutake T, Nakayama M (2026). Correspondence between motion sensor kinematics and notational analysis of scanning in field-based football gameplay. Front Psychol, 17, 1785026. PMID 42564027. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1785026
Lu M, Zhai Y, Peng H, Cao J, Yang Y, Chen L (2025). Effects of balance training combined with stroboscopic visual training on balance ability in college-aged male soccer players. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil, 17(1), 207. PMID 40682165. doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01255-7
McGuckian TB, Cole MH, Pepping GJ (2018). A systematic review of the technology-based assessment of visual perception and exploration behaviour in association football. J Sports Sci, 36(8), 861-880. PMID 28650793. doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1344780
McGuckian TB, Cole MH, Jordet G, Chalkley D, Pepping GJ (2018). Don't Turn Blind! The Relationship Between Exploration Before Ball Possession and On-Ball Performance in Association Football. Front Psychol, 9, 2520. PMID 30618946. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02520
McGuckian TB, Cole MH, Chalkley D, Jordet G, Pepping GJ (2020). Constraints on visual exploration of youth football players during 11v11 match-play: The influence of playing role, pitch position and phase of play. J Sports Sci, 38(6), 658-668. PMID 32009533. doi:10.1080/02640414.2020.1723375
Park J, Ghazanfar Z, Ali SG, Jeon SW, Jung Y (2026). Virtual Reality Sensing Technologies in Student Soccer Training: A Systematic Review of Tracking Systems and Perceptual-Cognitive, Physical, Tactical, and Educational Outcomes. Sensors (Basel), 26(17), 5381. PMID 42740001. doi:10.3390/s26175381
Paulus J, Tong J, Hornegger J, Schmidt M, Eskofier B, Michelson G (2014). Extended stereopsis evaluation of professional and amateur soccer players and subjects without soccer background. Front Psychol, 5, 1186. PMID 25368596. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01186
Phatak A, Gruber M (2019). Keep Your Head Up-Correlation between Visual Exploration Frequency, Passing Percentage and Turnover Rate in Elite Football Midfielders. Sports (Basel), 7(6), 139. PMID 31174322. doi:10.3390/sports7060139
Pokolm M, Rein R, Müller D, Nopp S, Kirchhain M, Aksum KM, Jordet G, Memmert D (2022). Modeling Players' Scanning Activity in Football. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 44(4), 263-271. PMID 35468590. doi:10.1123/jsep.2020-0299
Pokolm M, Kirchhain M, Müller D, Jordet G, Memmert D (2023). Head movement direction in football: a field study on visual scanning activity during the UEFA-U17 and -U21 European Championship 2019. J Sports Sci, 41(7), 695-705. PMID 37440444. doi:10.1080/02640414.2023.2235160
Ramírez Lucas JM, Párraga Montilla JA, Cabrera Linares JC, Latorre Román PÁ (2025). Enhancing Physical and Cognitive Performance in Youth Football: The Role of Specific Dual-Task Training. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol, 10(4), 404. PMID 41133594. doi:10.3390/jfmk10040404
Rodrigues P, Woodburn J, Bond AJ, Stockman A, Vera J (2025). Light-based manipulation of visual processing speed during soccer-specific training has a positive impact on visual and visuomotor abilities in professional soccer players. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt, 45(2), 504-513. PMID 39564808. doi:10.1111/opo.13423
Romeas T, Goujat M, Faubert J, Labbé D (2025). No transfer of 3D-Multiple Object Tracking training on game performance in soccer: A follow-up study. Psychol Sport Exerc, 76, 102770. PMID 39427852. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102770
Scharfen HE, Memmert D (2021). Cognitive training in elite soccer players: evidence of narrow, but not broad transfer to visual and executive function. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 51(2), 135-145. Not indexed in PubMed. doi:10.1007/s12662-020-00699-y
Schumacher N, Reer R, Braumann KM (2020). On-Field Perceptual-Cognitive Training Improves Peripheral Reaction in Soccer: A Controlled Trial. Front Psychol, 11, 1948. PMID 32849142. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01948
Vaeyens R, Lenoir M, Williams AM, Philippaerts RM (2007a). Mechanisms underpinning successful decision making in skilled youth soccer players: an analysis of visual search behaviors. J Mot Behav, 39(5), 395-408. PMID 17827116. doi:10.3200/JMBR.39.5.395-408
Vaeyens R, Lenoir M, Williams AM, Mazyn L, Philippaerts RM (2007b). The effects of task constraints on visual search behavior and decision-making skill in youth soccer players. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 29(2), 147-169. PMID 17568064. doi:10.1123/jsep.29.2.147
Vansteenkiste P, Lenoir M, Krejtz I, Krejtz K (2022). Visual strategies of young soccer players during a passing test: A pilot study. J Eye Mov Res, 15(1). PMID 35444736. doi:10.16910/jemr.15.1.3
Weng C, Gao D, Dong X, Xu S, Jiang J, Wang J (2026a). Effects of stroboscopic vision training on visuomotor reaction and soccer-specific reactive agility in male collegiate soccer players: a randomized controlled intervention study. Front Physiol, 17, 1897512. PMID 42548645. doi:10.3389/fphys.2026.1897512
Weng C, Gao D, Dong X, Gao Y, Wang Q, Wang J, Zou J, Shan L, Zhang H (2026b). Visual, visuomotor, and kinesthetic abilities in football players: their relationship with sport-specific performance and trainability. Front Neurosci, 20, 1930426. PMID 42707768. doi:10.3389/fnins.2026.1930426
Williams AM, Davids K (1998). Visual search strategy, selective attention, and expertise in soccer. Res Q Exerc Sport, 69(2), 111-128. PMID 9635326. doi:10.1080/02701367.1998.10607677
Wilson MR, Wood G, Vine SJ (2009). Anxiety, attentional control, and performance impairment in penalty kicks. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 31(6), 761-775. PMID 20384011. doi:10.1123/jsep.31.6.761
Wood G, Wilson MR (2011). Quiet-eye training for soccer penalty kicks. Cogn Process, 12(3), 257-266. PMID 21318734. doi:10.1007/s10339-011-0393-0
Wu J, Ai L (2025). How does mindfulness training affect attention and penalty kick performance in university football player. PLoS One, 20(6), e0327134. PMID 40561055. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327134
Yang M, Guo Y, Yang F, Zhao K (2026). Exploring the association between visual skills and sport-specific performance in team athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Physiol, 17, 1797347. PMID 41983007. doi:10.3389/fphys.2026.1797347
Zhao J, Gu Q, Zhao S, Mao J (2022). Effects of video-based training on anticipation and decision-making in football players: A systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci, 16, 945067. PMID 36438631. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.945067
Zwierko T, Tapia V, Vera J, Redondo B, Morenas-Aguilar MD, García-Ramos A (2024). Enhancing reactive agility in soccer: The impact of stroboscopic eyewear during warm-up across fatigued and non-fatigued conditions. Eur J Sport Sci, 24(12), 1798-1808. PMID 39578413. doi:10.1002/ejsc.12224
30 studies in gymnastics, trampoline, dance and skating: where the rotation expert looks, what the vestibulo-ocular reflex does, how good spotting is.
Read the article Sensory Sensors - VisionDynamic visual acuity in athletes, 43 studies: two tests under one name, only one well validated, an athlete advantage with no proven link to play.
Read the article Sensory Sensors - VisionAthletes' peripheral vision, 44 studies: experts use it better in action; reactive lights improve tests, the match is not measured.
Read the articleThe RNP system is meant to be read, targeted and tested from your next assessment. Start with the member space, for free.