Matteo Campagna
ITEN
Menu
Menu

Computer-based perceptual-cognitive training improves the score

1 study · 20 archers measured

ForContextAgainst20202022202420262021, context, n = 202020, context, n = 20
Each circle is a study: its position gives the year, its row whether it is for, against or context, its size how many participants it measured. Light circles are studies on other populations or without archers.

Everything there is comes from a single experiment, which the registry treats as one study because the two papers reporting it describe the same Indonesian university club, the same twenty archers and the same protocol. Ten add twelve NeuroTracker sessions over four weeks to their training, tracking moving targets with their eyes on a 3D television, and ten do their usual training. In the 2020 paper the outcome is concentration, and the computer group's gain on the grid test is about double, 8.5 against 4.5, with little more than half an hour of actual task time across the whole month. In the 2021 paper the outcome is the score at 30 metres: up 32.9 points against up 19.7, with a significant difference between the groups. There are three caveats. The control group also improves a great deal, so the part attributable to the computer is about a dozen points; the control group does not spend equivalent time at a screen on a dummy task, so novelty and the attention received weigh alongside the exercise itself; and the paper on scores sits in a journal with questionable editorial standards. So the registry reports the result on scores but does not use it to decide the status, which remains not studied.

Also phrased as: "neurotracker for archery"; "computer-based cognitive training"; "perceptual training"; "multiple object tracking"; "training vision on a computer"

In practice

Computer programs that promise to train attention and peripheral vision are spreading, and some people offer them to archers as well, as a complement to work on the range.

Evidence

  • 2020
    Context Archers Published later

    The same experiment, reported with concentration as the outcome: on the grid test the NeuroTracker group goes from 11.2 to 19.7 (+8.5) and the group on the club's usual training from 11.1 to 15.6 (+4.5); independent t = 6.414, p < 0.001, across 20 archers (14 men and 6 women, aged 19 to 21).

    Neurotracker Training to Improve The Archery Athlete Concentration · Komarudin, Sagitarius, Hadi Sartono, Patriana Nurmansyah Awwaludin, Gilang Ginanjar Hidayatullah

  • 2020
    Context Archers Published later

    The dose is small: three sessions a week for four weeks, each of 20 trials lasting 8 seconds, about 32 minutes of task in total, in a dark room with 3D glasses and a 50-inch 3D television at 1.33 metres, with target speed adapted to performance.

    Neurotracker Training to Improve The Archery Athlete Concentration · Komarudin, Sagitarius, Hadi Sartono, Patriana Nurmansyah Awwaludin, Gilang Ginanjar Hidayatullah

  • 2021
    Context Archers Published later

    Venue with questionable editorial standards: this result does not count towards the status. 20 archers from an Indonesian university club with competition experience, 10 per group: with twelve NeuroTracker sessions over four weeks the score at 30 metres goes from 265.70 to 298.60 (+32.9), with conventional training alone from 259.80 to 279.50 (+19.7). The comparison between groups gives t = 3.791, p = 0.01.

    Neurotracker Training to Improve Shooting Performance of Archery Athletes Questionable venue · Komarudin, Yusuf Hidayat, Geraldi Novian

  • 2021
    Context Archers Published later

    The control group also improves clearly, +19.7 points (paired t = 9.229, p < 0.001), so the advantage attributable to the computer is about 13 points. Participants are selected without random sampling and only then randomly assigned to the two groups, and the control group does no dummy task at a screen.

    Neurotracker Training to Improve Shooting Performance of Archery Athletes Questionable venue · Komarudin, Yusuf Hidayat, Geraldi Novian

Status history

  1. 2020 Not studied The first controlled study of this idea measures concentration, not the score. Twenty archers from an Indonesian university club are randomly split between twelve sessions of computer-based perceptual-cognitive exercise over four weeks and the club's usual training: they start from the same level of concentration, 11.2 and 11.1 on the grid test, and the computer group's gain is about double, 8.5 against 4.5, with little more than half an hour of actual task time across the whole month. On the score, which is what the claim is about, there is nothing yet.
  2. 2021 Not studied The first measurement on the target arrives, from the same experiment: over four weeks the group that adds twelve NeuroTracker sessions gains 32.9 points at 30 metres against 19.7 for the conventional group, which also improves (difference between groups t = 3.79, p = 0.01). They are the same twenty archers as in 2020, randomly assigned to the groups but selected without random sampling, and the paper sits in a journal with questionable editorial standards. Because of the venue, the registry reports the result but does not use it to decide the status, which remains not studied.

Related

Related articles

Research lines

Cite
APA

Campagna, M. (2026). Computer-based perceptual-cognitive training improves the score (Version 2). In Evidence Registry. Retrieved 16 October 2026, from https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/perceptual-cognitive-training-score

BibTeX
@misc{campagna2026_neurotrackerpunteggio,
  author = {Campagna, Matteo},
  title = {Computer-based perceptual-cognitive training improves the score},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {Evidence Registry, matteocampagna.com},
  url = {https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/mind/perceptual-cognitive-training-score},
  note = {Version 2; accessed 2026-10-16}
}

Other claims in this domain

See all claims on mind and attention