ABSTRACT
Purpose: The aim of this study is to verify if a single session on the NeuroTracker has predictive value in talent identification in ice hockey. Methods: Thirty-five male ice hockey players (aged 16-20) from the highest Canadian competition level for that age group participated in the study. A battery of tests (attention, working memory, time reproduction, pattern recognition, temporal equivalence, technical ability, and decision-making) was administered to verify the relation between various cognitive abilities, on-ice performance, and the baseline score on the NeuroTracker, which is claimed to solicit multiple cognitive functions. On-ice performance indicators were game-related statistics: games played, points (mean per game), on-ice goals differential, and draft rank. Results: Results show that the baseline score on the NeuroTracker is not associated with draft ranking, nor is it able to predict which players will perform best based on game-related statistics. However, the NeuroTracker baseline score does correlate with various tests involving working memory and attention. Conclusion: Currently, NeuroTracker is not specific enough to allow talent identification among same-level elite athletes in ice hockey.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Antoine Demers, François Hamel, Nicola Thibault, P. Roy, S. Belanger, and the Junior Major team and staff for their participation in this project. We would also like to thank an anonymous reviewer for their comments on a previous draft of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Invasion sports are categorized as team sports in which the purpose is to invade the opponent’s territory in order to score points and to stop the other team from doing so.
2 During a typical hockey season, players are occasionally traded between teams of the same league. Here, 10 players were traded, implying that 10 players left after participating in the study and 10 new players came along and agreed to participate in the study, leading to 35 players overall.
3 A congruent pattern means a logical and plausible play. An incongruent pattern means the play does not exist or doesn’t make sense. No significant difference was found between congruent and incongruent patterns recall.