Results
Table 1 presents the participants’ characteristics. No significant differences were observed in age ( F (2, 51) = 2.863, p = 0.066), height ( F (2, 51) = 0.420, p = 0.659), weight ( F (2, 51) = 0.556, p = 0.577), handedness scores ( F (2, 51) = 0.536, p = 0.589), video game experience ( F (2, 51) = 1.387, p = 0.259), and socioeconomic status of the family ( F (2, 51) = 1.579, p = 0.216) among groups. There was a significant difference in IQ ( F (2, 51) = 9.061, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.262), and a post hoc comparison revealed that ETT players had a lower IQ than ATT players ( p < 0.003) and nonathletes ( p < 0.001), but no significant difference between the ATT and nonathletes ( p < 0.368) was observed.

With regards to sport characteristics, there was a significant difference between the two athlete groups in terms of the number of years engaged in sport training ( t (34) = 3.411, p < 0.01, d = 1.14) and weekly training frequency within the past 6 months ( t (34) = 3.972, p < 0.01, d = 1.32), the results show that ETT players had longer training frequency and training experience (years) than ATT players. There was no difference in the number of daily training hours within the previous 6 months ( t (34) = 1.966, p = 0.057). ETT players had greater physical activity levels than ATT players, and both athlete groups had greater levels of physical activity than nonathletes ( F (2, 51) = 16.436, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.392).

Table 2 presents the results for mean correct response accuracy. The data showed a main effect for condition ( F (1,51) = 89.66, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.637), with a higher accuracy in the nondelayed condition (96.10%) than in the delayed condition (90.17%). Neither an effect of condition by group ( F (2,51) = 0.943, p = 0.396, η 2 = 0.036) nor a main effect for group ( F (2, 51) = 1.250, p = 0.295, η 2 = 0.047) was observed.

Note:

Response accuracy (%); RT, Response time (ms); mean ± SD *Group effect at p < 0.05.

Table 2 shows the mean correct reaction time and accuracy-adjusted RT (AART) across groups and conditions. There was no significant main effect of group × condition interaction effect ( F (2,51) = 0.193, p = 0.825, η 2 = 0.008). However, a significant main effect of condition, ( F (1,51) = 37.141, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.421), revealed that reaction times in the delayed condition (656.89 ms) was shorter than in the nondelayed condition (706.63 ms), and main effect of group ( F (2, 51) = 5.494, p < 0.05, η 2 = 0.177) and both ETT players (646.15 ms, p < 0.003) and ATT players (660.83 ms, p < 0.012) demonstrated shorter reaction times than nonathletes (738.32 ms) regardless of task conditions, but there was no difference between the two athlete groups ( p < 0.625) was observed. Similar results were found for RT and accuracy-adjusted RT, with a significant effect of group ( F (2,51) = 5.238, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.170). Both athlete groups had a shorter accuracy-adjusted RT than the nonathletes regardless of condition, but there was no difference between the two athlete groups (ETT: 7.00 ms/% & ATT: 7.04 ms/% < nonathletes: 7.94 ms/%). There were no significant effects of condition by group ( F (2,51) = 0.038, p = 0.963, η 2 = 0.001), and condition ( F (1,51) = 0.271, p = 0.605, η 2 = 0.005).

Figure 2 illustrates the grand average ERP results at Fz, Cz, and Pz for each group and each condition. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations P3 across groups and conditions. In the analysis of P3 response latency to target stimuli, the analysis did not show an interaction effect for group × condition × electrode site ( F (4,51) = 1.811, p = 0.133, η 2 = 0.069), group × condition ( F (2,51) = 1.207, p = 0.308, η 2 = 0.047), group × electrode site ( F (4,51) = 0.898, p = 0.440, η 2 = 0.035), or condition × electrode site ( F (2,51) = 0.485, p = 0.616, η 2 = 0.010) or a main effect of group ( F (2,51) = 0.616, p = 0.544, η 2 = 0.025), or main effect of condition ( F (1,51) = 0.367, p = 0.548, η 2 = 0.007), or electrode site ( F (2,51) = 0.742, p = 0.433, η 2 = 0.015).

Note:

L, Latency (ms); A, Amplitude (µV). site, electrode. The main effect of group ( F (2, 51) = 4.756, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.229) revealed that the ETT players (12.61 µV) showed greater P3 amplitudes than the ATT players (9. 64 µV, p < 0.030) and nonathletes (6.07 µV, p < 0.001), and ATT players ( p < 0.007) and had a greater P3 amplitude than nonathletes.

In the analysis of P3 response amplitude to target stimuli, there was no significant interaction effect of group × condition × electrode ( F (4,51) = 0.569, p = 0.621, η 2 = 0.034), condition × group ( F (2,51) = 0.215, p = 0.808, η 2 = 0.013), group × electrode ( F (2,51) = 0.303, p = 0.762, η 2 = 0.019), condition × electrode ( F (2,51) = 0.413, p = 0.584, η 2 = 0.013), electrode ( F (1,51) = 0.991, p = 0.335, η 2 = 0.030), or condition ( F (1,51) = 0.140, p = 0.711, η 2 = 0.004). Finally, a significant main effect of group ( F (2, 51) = 4.756, p < 0.01, η 2 = 0.229) was observed, the results revealed that ETT players (12.61 µV ) had a greater P3 amplitude than ATT players (9. 64 µV , p < 0.030) and nonathletes (6.07 µV , p < 0.001), and ATT players ( p < 0.007) and had a greater P3 amplitude than nonathletes.

AART and IQ analysis, we found that the AART did not correlate with IQ in either the attention ( r = 0.134, p = 0.334) or in the working memory condition ( r = 0.264, p = 0.054) across subjects, indicating that IQ may not directly account for the group effect of AART in the present study.

AART and physical activity levels (PAL) analysis, we found that the AART did not correlate with PAL in either the attention ( r = −0.267, p = 0.051) or in the working memory condition ( r = −0.262, p = 0.056) across subjects, indicating that levels of physical activity may not directly account for the group effect of task performance in the present study.

In addition, AART and ST analysis, We found that the AART did not correlate with years engaged in table tennis training in either the attention ( r = 0.269, p = 0.112) or in the working memory condition ( r = 0.177, p = 0.302), with weekly training frequency in either the attention ( r = −0.079, p = 0.651) or in the working memory condition ( r = 0.064, p = 0.710) and with training number of hours in either the attention ( r = −0.114, p = 0.509) or in the working memory condition ( r = 0.082, p = 0.636) across subjects. This suggests that the sport training experience (years), weekly training frequency and hours may not directly account for the group effect of AART in this study.

For the analysis of P3 amplitude and ST years, we observed no correlation with ST years in the attention condition at Fz ( r = 0.067, p = 0.698), Cz ( r = 0.133, p = 0.439), and Pz ( r = 0.201, p = 0.240), or in the working memory conditions at Fz ( r = 0.140, p = 0.415), Cz ( r = 0.252, p =0.138), and Pz ( r = 0.201, p = 0.240). Similarly, when analyzing P3 amplitude and weekly practice frequency, no correlation was found in the attention condition at Fz ( r = 0.057, p = 0.743), Cz ( r = 0.018, p = 0.918), and Pz ( r = 0.047, p = 0.787), or in the working memory conditions at Fz ( r = −0.021, p = 0.904), Cz ( r = 0.060, p = 0.728), and Pz ( r = 0.120, p = 0.486). These findings suggest that neither weekly practice frequency nor ST years directly influence the group effect of P3 amplitude in this study. For the P3 amplitude and ST hours analysis, no correlation was observed in the attention condition at Fz ( r = −0.078, p = 0.652) and Pz ( r = −0.268, p = 0.114), or in the working memory conditions at Fz ( r = −0.128, p = 0.457), Cz ( r = −0.168, p = 0.326), and Pz ( r = −0.117, p = 0.497). However, a negative correlation was noted for P3 amplitude at Cz ( r = −0.336, p < 0.045) ( Figure 3 ) in the attentional conditions, indicating that athletes with higher training hours utilize fewer neural resources, while those with lower training hours use more.

Regarding the P3 latencies and ST years analysis, no correlation with ST years was found in the attention condition at Fz ( r = 0.123, p = 0.474), Cz ( r = 0.197, p = 0.251), and Pz ( r = −0.003, p = 0.987), or in the working memory conditions at Fz (r = 0.150, p = 0.382), Cz (r = 0.148, p = 0.390), and Pz ( r = −0.080, p = 0.641). Similarly, for the P3 latencies and weekly practice frequency analysis, no correlation was observed in the attention condition at Fz ( r = 0.036, p = 0.835), Cz ( r = 0.067, p = 0.699), and Pz ( r = −0.191, p = 0.264), or in the working memory conditions at Fz ( r = −0.083, p = 0.631), Cz ( r = −0.150, p = 0.382), and Pz ( r = −0.134, p = 0.434). For the P3 latencies and ST hours analysis, no correlation was found in the attention condition at Fz ( r = 0.121, p = 0.481), Cz ( r = 0.082, p = 0.636), and Pz ( r = −0.322, p = 0.056), or in the working memory conditions at Fz ( r = 0.096, p = 0.577), Cz ( r = −0.056, p = 0.745), and Pz ( r = 0.021, p = 0.904). These results suggest that ST hours, weekly practice frequency, and ST years may not directly influence the group effect of P3 latencies in this study.