Somatic anxiety in novice archers: Dal 2018 study

Thirty-nine Turkish university students, new to archery, completed a competitive anxiety questionnaire (CSAI-2) and a neuroticism scale, then shot 10 arrows at 18 metres while the authors recorded heart rate variability (HRV) and breathing rate. Across the whole group none of the three CSAI-2 scales (cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, self-confidence) was related to performance, and none was related to HRV. They were related to breathing: before shooting, cognitive anxiety (r = 0.49) and somatic anxiety (r = 0.35) went with faster breathing and self-confidence with slower breathing (r = -0.33); during shooting, cognitive anxiety was related to breathing with a negative sign (r = -0.43).

Splitting the group in half by neuroticism changes the picture. In the more neurotic half, cognitive anxiety went with faster breathing before shooting (r = 0.58) and during it (r = 0.73), and was negatively related to performance (r = -0.62); breathing during shooting was also negatively related to performance (r = -0.59), and both kinds of anxiety were negatively related to the LF/HF ratio. In the less neurotic half the only links were with the heart: before shooting between cognitive anxiety and HF power (r = -0.49), during shooting between self-confidence and LF power (r = -0.53). Entered together in a regression, the three CSAI-2 scales explained part of breathing and performance during shooting only in the more neurotic archers. The authors conclude that neuroticism may shape how anxiety relates to the autonomic nervous system.

The participants were 39 students (12 women) aged 18 to 27, mean age 23.5, who had just finished a 14-week archery course for university credit; none had shot before. Neuroticism was measured with the relevant subscale of a five-factor personality inventory, anxiety with the CSAI-2 (27 items, three scales). After the questionnaires, the authors recorded HRV and breathing for 4 minutes seated, then during shooting: 10 arrows in 4 minutes at 18 metres on an 80 cm face, self-paced at roughly 20 to 25 seconds per arrow. From the HRV they derived HF and LF power and their ratio. The paper does not say which device recorded heart and breathing, how the signals were processed, or what bows the participants used.

Performance is described in two ways: in the abstract as radial distance from the centre, taking the median of the 10 arrows; in the methods as the sum of the first 10 arrows. The analysis uses Spearman correlations on the whole group and then in the two subgroups formed by a median split on neuroticism, of about 20 people each, plus a regression of the three CSAI-2 scales on breathing and performance.

The sample is small, and the most interesting results come from subgroups of about 20 people, with many correlations computed and no correction for multiple comparisons, so some associations may have come up by chance. Beginners at the end of a course are not experienced archers, and 10 arrows at 18 metres are not a competition, even though the authors describe it as an important event. The device, sampling rate and signal processing are not reported; with 4-minute recordings and an activity that involves movement, spectral HRV measures are hard to interpret. The LF/HF ratio, which the authors read as the balance between sympathetic and parasympathetic activity, is now regarded as an index of uncertain physiological meaning.

Because performance is defined in two opposite ways (an error, where lower is better, or a score, where higher is better), the sign of the correlations with performance cannot be read with confidence: we do not know whether, in the more neurotic archers, anxiety went with better or worse shooting. Other figures do not add up either. With 39 people a correlation of 0.35 does not give p = 0.003; in the regressions the adjusted R² (0.42 and 0.30) is larger than the square of the reported R (0.52 and 0.41), which is impossible; and the discussion says both kinds of anxiety went with breathing across the whole sample, although during shooting the link with cognitive anxiety had a negative sign. The journal is one the registry flags for questionable editorial standards.

For archers, the study shows no link between reported anxiety and performance among beginners taken as a whole. It suggests, on weak data, that in people more prone to nervousness cognitive anxiety, breathing and performance are connected during shooting, but given how performance is defined it is not even clear in which direction. It remains an association: it does not show that changing one's breathing changes scores, or that anxiety is what speeds breathing up.

The authors propose using neuroticism when selecting young archers, but nothing in the data supports a conclusion of that kind: these are 39 students at the end of a course, with 10 arrows each. In the registry the study counts as a preliminary hint about the part breathing plays between anxiety and shooting, to be read alongside work on experienced archers in competition.