HRV, flow and archery score: Dal 2019 study

Thirty Turkish university students aged 18 to 23, who had just finished a 14-week archery course, shot 10 arrows at 18 metres on an 80-centimetre target while their heart rate was recorded. Accuracy was the median distance of the 10 arrows from the centre. During shooting the ratio of low to high frequency heart rate variability (LF/HF) rose compared with 4 minutes of rest, and those with a higher ratio shot closer to the centre (a correlation of -0.49 with distance from the centre).

Also linked to accuracy were the total trait emotional intelligence score (-0.54), two of its three scales, regulation of emotions (-0.40) and appraisal of emotions (-0.38), and two of the nine flow dimensions, challenge-skill balance (-0.42) and clear goals (-0.44). Flow as a whole was not (-0.17). In a stepwise regression the LF/HF ratio, challenge-skill balance and total emotional intelligence remained, together explaining 38% of the differences in accuracy (adjusted R squared).

The participants had taken the course for academic credit and none had any previous experience; those with a final grade above 70 were invited to take part. Before shooting they completed the Schutte emotional intelligence scale (41 items, Turkish version), then their heart rate was recorded for 4 minutes at rest, seated. Shooting lasted 4 minutes, self-paced, at about 20 to 25 seconds per arrow; only the first 10 arrows counted. Straight afterwards they completed the state flow scale (36 items, nine dimensions).

The LF/HF ratio was compared between rest and shooting with a Wilcoxon test, and its links with accuracy with Spearman correlations; the significant variables were then entered in a stepwise regression. The paper does not name the device used to record heart rate, the type of bow or the draw weight.

Thirty beginners and ten arrows each are too few to estimate each person's accuracy, and fewer still for a regression that picks automatically among six candidates: with these numbers the final model may simply fit the sample. In the regression table, moreover, emotional intelligence has t = -1.76, a value that with 30 people would not usually reach significance, even though the text presents it as a significant predictor.

The LF/HF ratio is a contested measure: the authors themselves point out that it can depend heavily on breathing rate, which they did not control, and a beginner who holds their breath or breathes irregularly during the draw can change the ratio without any change in the balance of the nervous system. The recording device and the criteria for cleaning the signal are not reported. Flow was measured after shooting, so it may reflect the result: someone who shot well tends to recall clearer goals and a task within their reach. All the relationships are correlations taken at a single point in time and do not show what comes first.

The most striking result runs against a common idea: among these beginners, those who showed a higher LF/HF ratio while shooting, that is greater arousal rather than less, shot better. The authors explain this by the physical and mental effort the shot demands from someone still learning it, and warn that in experienced archers the ratio may behave differently. It is therefore no reason to try to raise arousal, nor to read a low LF/HF ratio as a sign of good preparation.

The psychological findings point in a more intuitive direction: those who said they could recognise and regulate emotions, and those who felt after shooting that the task was within their reach and the goals were clear, were more accurate. With 30 beginners and a single test these are pointers, of interest to anyone studying how archery is learnt, not guidance for training.