Emotional intelligence and HRV in archers: Dal 2019

Eighty-six Turkish university students, beginners who had just passed a 14-week archery course with a grade above 70, completed a trait emotional intelligence questionnaire and then shot 10 arrows at 18 metres on an 80-centimetre face within four minutes. Their heart rate variability was then recorded for four minutes straight afterwards.

Of the questionnaire's three parts, only emotion regulation was related to variability: a correlation of 0.30 with low-frequency power (LF) and about 0.32 with high-frequency power (HF), and an inverse relationship with the LF/HF ratio. In the regressions the questionnaire explained a small share of the differences between people, with an adjusted R squared of 0.11 for LF, 0.13 for HF and 0.07 for the ratio. Splitting the sample at the median of the regulation score, those above it had higher LF and HF (eta squared 0.07 and 0.10) and a lower LF/HF ratio (0.11).

The questionnaire is the Schutte scale in its revised Turkish adaptation: 41 items and three subscales, regulation, appraisal and utilisation of emotion, with an internal consistency of 0.87 in this sample. The electrocardiogram was recorded with a Nexus-10 system in lead II at 1024 Hz; beat-to-beat intervals were inspected by eye, cleaned of artefacts and analysed in the frequency domain (LF 0.04 to 0.15 Hz, HF 0.15 to 0.40 Hz). Each participant shot at their own pace, about 20 to 25 seconds per arrow, and anyone finishing before four minutes was given more arrows. Each session involved one participant and the experimenter only, at the sport sciences faculty's facilities in Manisa.

The starting point is missing: variability was not measured at rest before shooting, so the study compares only the levels in the four minutes afterwards, not how far each person recovered. Breathing, which has a large effect on variability, especially when it is slow, was not measured, as the author points out. Arrow scores were not recorded, so the idea that people who regulate their emotions better also shoot better does not come from these data.

Reading LF as sympathetic activity and the LF/HF ratio as the balance between the two branches is now widely disputed, and one of the sources the paper cites questions exactly this reading. Some figures do not add up: the abstract gives 87 participants aged 18 to 26, the methods 86 aged 18 to 25 (this record uses 86, which matches the degrees of freedom); in the correlation table the LF/HF ratio appears with a positive sign while the text gives it as negative, and the significance notes look reversed. The sample consists of beginners from a single university.

The study is a first look, in beginners, at the link between how people say they handle their emotions and the state of the heart after a short series of arrows. Those who report better emotion regulation showed higher heart rate variability in the minutes after shooting; how much this matters for recovery between ends or for score was not measured. It offers no direct practical guidance: it shows that recovery after shooting deserves study, not how to achieve it. In the registry it should be read alongside the heart rate variability studies of experienced archers that the author compares it with.