https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/imagery-practice-score Changes to this claim in Matteo Campagna's evidence registry: its status, its year-by-year history, revisions of the page. en-gb https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/imagery-practice-scoreHere the association and the controlled test say different things, and they have been doing so for forty years. Among more than a hundred American archers, those who reported using visual imagery more had higher average scores, but that is a snapshot, and in the same study image control and vividness did not reach the threshold. The first intervention with a comparison group, in eighteen Greek national-level archers, measured scores in two indoor competitions four weeks apart and found no advantage: both groups had gained about fifteen points out of six hundred. Since then the results have alternated. The largest gains come from beginners, where learning the shot itself adds in, and from the studies with the most fragile designs: no comparison group, non-random allocation, or journals with doubtful editorial standards. The 2025 randomised study on thirty national-level Indian archers belongs here too: after twelve weeks it gives the imagery group a seventeen-point advantage, but all it says about the shooting test is that the archers shot the regulation number of arrows. The clearest result in favour from a journal with no warning flag, thirty-six Turkish teenagers starting out, gives almost five points over nine arrows to the group that added imagery, yet in the same work the questionnaires on imagery use do not move, so what changed is unclear. And there is a hint that a group average may hide opposite effects: among eight Olympic archers interviewed, some picture the shot from inside, one from outside, and one avoids imagery because it leaves them unsure of themselves.claim:visualizzazione-punteggio:revision:2026-09-26:4Sat, 26 Sep 2026 08:00:00 GMT https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/imagery-practice-score#storiaA small Malaysian study adds a supporting result, with the weakest design of the series: six novice boys do four weeks of guided imagery and rise from 73.8 to 81.8 points over ten arrows, while the comparison group is six experienced archers, already close to the maximum, who also improve without imagery. Without novices who simply train, eight points in a month may come from practice. The contrast with the controlled Greek trial of 1991 remains: contested.claim:visualizzazione-punteggio:history_entry:2026-08-17:2019Mon, 17 Aug 2026 08:00:00 GMT https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/imagery-practice-score#storiaThe clearest result in favour from a journal with no warning flag arrives: thirty-six Turkish beginners aged fourteen to eighteen in three groups, eight weeks with two fifteen-minute sessions a week, and the group adding imagery gains 4.92 points over nine arrows at 18 m while the training-only group loses almost half a point. It is still a single study, not randomised, in beginners, and in the same work the questionnaires on imagery use do not move, which leaves open what changed. The same year brings two more papers that do not move the status. A randomised study on thirty national-level Indian archers gives the imagery group, after twelve weeks, a seventeen-point advantage over the group that simply trains, but all we learn about the shooting test is that it was the regulation number of arrows, and the journal has doubtful editorial standards, so it cannot decide the status. The other republishes the 2020 data on the Jakarta beginners with an extra analysis that contradicts them, and counts as the same study. Alongside the null results already on the record, the status stays contested.claim:visualizzazione-punteggio:history_entry:2026-06-16:2025Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:00:00 GMT https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/imagery-practice-score#storiaTwenty-four regional Indonesian archers do ten sessions of imagery or meditation, and the imagery group rises by about a hundred points in the 40-metre test. The result cannot be used as evidence: there is no group doing nothing, no test between the groups, and the paired-test table corresponds to seven archers rather than twelve, in a journal with doubtful editorial standards. The status stays contested.claim:visualizzazione-punteggio:history_entry:2026-06-16:2023Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:00:00 GMT https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/imagery-practice-score#storiaA result in favour is added, yet it does not untie the knot. Thirty-four university beginners in Jakarta are split between imagery and progressive muscle relaxation: the imagery group raises its score at ten metres, but so does the other one, and the two final results look alike. With no group doing nothing, a comparison between two techniques that both improve says nothing about whether it is the imagery working or the weeks of practice. In the same year six elite Korean archers do eight imagery sessions guided by electroencephalography: beta waves settle and competitive anxiety falls, but the score is not measured, so the result describes a possible mechanism and leaves the question where it was.claim:visualizzazione-punteggio:history_entry:2026-06-16:2020Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:00:00 GMT https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/imagery-practice-score#storiaThe eight archers of the Italian Olympic team, interviewed a month before Atlanta, describe how they use imagery in competition, and they do not all use it the same way: three see themselves from inside, two see the arrow reach the gold, one sees themselves from outside, four talk to themselves to guide the image and one avoids it because it makes them feel uncertain. It does not measure the score and does not move the status, which stays contested, but it suggests why a group average might show nothing.claim:visualizzazione-punteggio:history_entry:2026-06-16:1998Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:00:00 GMT https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/imagery-practice-scoreclaim:visualizzazione-punteggio:new_claim:2026-04-16:contestatoThu, 16 Apr 2026 08:00:00 GMT