Background: Attentional resource allocation during sports practice is associated with the players’ perceived mental load. However, few ecological studies address this problem by considering the players’ characteristics (e.g., practice experience, skill and cognition). Therefore, this study aimed to analyse the dose-response effect of two different types of practice, each with different learning objectives, on mental load and motor performance by using a linear mixed model analysis. Method: Forty-four university students (age 20.36 ± 3.13 years) participated in this study. Two sessions were conducted, one based on a standard rules 1 × 1 basketball situation (“practice to maintain”) and one with motor, temporal and spatial restrictions in 1 × 1 tasks (“practice to learn”). Results: “Practice to learn” produced a higher perceived mental load (NASA-TLX scale) and a worse performance than “practice to maintain”, but was moderated by experience and inhibition (p = 0.001). The same happens in the most demanding restriction (i.e., temporal, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The results showed that increasing the difficulty of 1 × 1 situations through restrictions harmed the player’s performance and increased their perceived mental load. These effects were moderated by previous basketball experience and the player’s inhibition capacity, so the difficulty adjustment should be based on the athletes themselves.

Background/Objectives: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is common in interaction sports and has severe physical and psychological consequences. Recent research suggests that neurocognitive factors, such as proactive inhibitory control, may influence injury risk. The present work compares the proactive inhibitory performance ability of athletes with no ACL injury and ACL-rehabilitated athletes (ACLR). Methods: This study involved 60 athletes from interaction sports (30 with no history of ACL injury and 30 ACL rehabilitated athletes). During the experimental session, participants performed an executive go–no-go task to assess proactive inhibitory control. Results: The ACLR group exhibited higher adjusted-precision response times (p = 0.011), higher inhibitory failures response times (p < 0.001), poorer accuracy (p = 0.003), and higher commission error rate (p = 0.026) than the group of athletes with no history of ACL injury. Conclusions: Athletes rehabilitated from an ACL injury show inferior performance in proactive inhibitory control, evidenced by lower accuracy and higher reaction times than athletes without a history of injury. Consequently, physiotherapists and exercise professionals should consider cognition during ACL injury rehabilitation and physical retraining before returning to sporting activity.

Background: Cognitive load is an important factor influencing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. However, few studies have systematically manipulated and quantified cognitive load to examine its biomechanical and neurophysiological consequences. Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the impact of varying cognitive load levels on biomechanical variables associated with ACL injury risk. The study further explored whether individual cognitive performance was related to alterations in ACL injury risk indicators and examined prefrontal cortical activity as an objective marker of mental workload. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 30 athletes engaged in team sports performed a single-leg drop vertical jump (SL-DVJ) under 5 cognitive conditions of varying complexity using a modified Go/No-Go task. Biomechanics, behavioral, and prefrontal hemodynamic data variables were recorded. Cognitive performance was assessed through a computerized Go/No-Go task. Results: Higher cognitive load significantly increased peak ground-reaction forces and altered joint kinematics, specifically reducing knee flexion and increasing knee abduction during landing, especially in conditions that required high cognitive demand ( P < .001). These changes were accompanied by increased prefrontal hemoglobin (OxyHb) concentrations, suggesting elevated cortical activation. Furthermore, lower cognitive performance, notably lower accuracy and higher precision-adjusted response time, was associated with more pronounced biomechanical patterns (such as greater ground-reaction forces) and an increase in the risk of ACL injury ( r = −0.471, P < .01; r = 0.650, P < .001, respectively). Conclusion: An increased cognitive load altered the biomechanics of movement during an SL-DVJ, leading to a potential for increased risk of ACL injury. Moreover, athletes with poorer cognitive control may have been more susceptible to these effects. Prefrontal cortex (PFC) activity increased under conditions of higher cognitive demand. The pattern of regional activation varied according to the type of stimulus (eg, higher OxyHb concentrations for the ventrolateral PFC were observed during the change goal-stimulus condition), suggesting a specific functional organization of the PFC according to the particular demands of executive control. Clinical Relevance: These findings highlight the importance of integrating cognitive challenges into injury prevention and rehabilitation strategies. The findings emphasize the need to consider cognitive load as a central variable in injury risk mitigation and to evaluate cognitive performance as a potential prognostic indicator.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries significantly impact athletes’ performance, and a neurocognitive approach, particularly executive functions, may play a relevant role in ACL injury. The aim was to evaluate and compare performance on inhibitory control and visual attention using the Flanker Task and Multiple Object Tracking (MOT) cognitive tests between athletes with and without a history of non-contact ACL injury. 60 athletes of interaction sports (30 athletes with no history of ACL injury and 30 athletes with a history of non-contact ACL injury) participated in this study. During the experimental session participants performed Flanker Task and Multiple Object Tracking to evaluate inhibitory control and visual attention, respectively. Athletes with a history of non-contact ACL injury had longer reaction times than healthy athletes on the Flanker Task cognitive test (p < 0.001). For the MOT, athletes with a history of non-contact ACL injury had worse two-ball follow-through at speeds of 19.9 deg/s (p = 0.034) and 28.8 deg/s (p < 0.001) and three-ball follow-through at speeds of 19.9 deg/s (p = 0.009) and 28.8 deg/s (p < 0.001). Athletes with a history of non-contact ACL injury exhibit poorer cognitive performance than athletes without a history of ACL injury in inhibitory control, particularly interference control and visual attention. Therefore, rehabilitators and exercise professionals should consider the assessment and training of executive functions into the rehabilitation process for ACL injuries.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury induces neuroplastic changes within the central nervous system (CNS) that may persist beyond reconstruction and rehabilitation. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare neurocognitive performance and cortical oscillatory activity between open-skill athletes (eg, soccer, basketball, or handball players) without ACL injury history and athletes with ACL reconstruction (ACLR) during a probabilistic go/no-go task. It was hypothesized that athletes with ACLR would exhibit poorer behavioral performance and less efficient oscillatory dynamics, particularly higher theta and lower suppression of beta and alpha power oscillations after goal stimulus onset. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 90 open-skill athletes (45 non-ACLR, 45 ACLR) performed a probabilistic go/no-go task while electroencephalographic recording was performed. Time-frequency analysis targeted midfrontal theta (4-7 Hz), left-lateralized central beta (15-25 Hz), and posterior alpha (8-12 Hz) oscillations during prestimulus and target stimulus windows. Linear mixed-effects models examined group differences in cognitive performance and oscillatory power. Results: Athletes with ACLR showed slower response times and lower accuracy ( d = 0.75-1.09). Midfrontal theta power was attenuated for the ACLR group during the prestimulus phase ( d = 0.60) yet elevated during target phase trials ( d = 0.48), indicating a shift from proactive to reactive cognitive control in athletes with ACLR. Left-lateralized central beta ( d = 0.61) and posterior alpha suppression ( d = 0.55) were reduced, reflecting impaired motor cortical disinhibition and less efficient visual-attentional resource deployment, especially under high uncertainty conditions. Conclusion: Athletes with ACLR showed persistent alterations in the cortical oscillatory mechanisms associated with conflict monitoring, motor preparation, and attentional allocation under uncertainty. These neurocognitive alterations may compromise adaptive motor responses in sport contexts characterized by high uncertainty and cognitive mental demand, potentially increasing reinjury risk. These findings support the integration of neurocognitive assessment into return-to-sport protocols. Clinical Relevance: Alterations in cortical oscillatory dynamics during decision-making under uncertainty may reflect reduced efficiency in cognitive control, motor preparation, and attentional allocation, which are not detected by standard assessments. Exercise professionals should consider integrating these assessments into return-to-sport protocols to address the persistent CNS alterations that may underlie reinjury risk in athletes with ACLR.