## 4 Discussion  
Significant differences were observed in the response time, with increased time elapsed from the player gaining ball control until executing the following action. However, the 2 min Stroop test was insufficient to promote significant changes in accurate decision and technical execution accuracy. Our results showed that the response time could be increased in participants after undergoing the 2 min Stroop test mental fatigue protocol. Our results align with those found by [PERSON] et al. [40], where it was observed that after performing the Stroop test for 15 min, response time increased when proceeding to the next 30 min Stroop test. However, the protocol used by these authors differed since they conducted two consecutive Stroop tests without subsequently engaging in sport-specific tasks. In contrast, we employed a shorter Stroop test duration and became involved in a soccer-specific task (see Figure 2). Although not identical to the procedure conducted in the present study, the response time was increased. In line with these findings, the study by [PERSON] et al. [12] reported differences in the execution time of technical gestures, which increased under conditions of mental fatigue. This study followed a similar approach to ours, where the Stroop test was conducted first, followed by specific tests such as the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test (level 1), LSPT, and LSST tests. In the same line, [PERSON] et al. [41] used a 15 min Stroop task to induce mental fatigue in athletes, and their results showed an increase in reaction time. Although the proposed task focused on hand-eye coordination, it underscores the importance of utilizing perceptual, motor, and cognitive resources to execute rapid movements in response to visual stimuli. The incongruent 2 min Stroop test may have disrupted the afferent-afferent closed-loop system, resulting in slower reactions from \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Outcomes** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean (SD) or** \\ **Frequency (\%)** \\ **with Fatigue** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean (SD) or** \\ **Frequency (\%)** \\ **Without Fatigue** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(p\)**-Value** \\ **\end{tabular} & **Effect Size** \\ \hline Response time & 1.14 (0.20) & 0.93 (0.09) & \textless{}0.001 & 0.878 \\ Technical & & & & \\ execution & 9 (50\%) & 12 (66.7\%) & 1.000 & \textless{}0.001 \\ accuracy & & & & \\ Correct decision & 13 (72.2\%) & 16 (88.9\%) & 0.457 & 0.031 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: SD = Standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison between mental fatigue and non-mental fatigue protocols. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Mean (SD)** \\ **First Minute** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean (SD)** \\ **Second Minute** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(p\)**-Value** \\ **\end{tabular} & **Effect Size** \\ \hline Technical & & & & \\ execution & 70.28 (2.49) & 70.50 (2.60) & 0.735 & 0.080 \\ accuracy & & & & \\ Errors & 2.44 (2.03) & 2.50 (2.20) & 0.754 & 0.074 \\ Total words & 72.72 (1.45) & 73 (1.02) & 0.434 & 0.184 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: SD = Standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison between first and second attempt of the Stroop test. players during specific technical tasks. However, a systematic review examining mental fatigue in football [19] indicated that the effects of mental fatigue on behaviors such as reaction time have been minimally studied. The authors emphasized this as an important area for future research. Despite few studies having analyzed this in the field of sport, our results align with previous studies that analyzed the effects of drivers driving safely and efficiently regarding their ability to process incoming afferent information [42; 43]. These studies showed that when drivers were fatigued, their ability to process information about the driving environment decreased, increasing the likelihood of an accident.