## 3 Results
### Visual Assessment  
The mean static binocular visual acuity, measured using the decimal scale, was 1.2 \(\pm\) 0.1 (median [IQR]: 1.3 [0.06]), while the mean dynamic binocular visual acuity was 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 (median [IQR]: 0.9 [0.10]). Regarding the percentage of visually resolved targets, the right eye achieved 76.2 \(\pm\) 21.9% (median [IQR]: 80 [20]%), the left eye achieved 68.9 \(\pm\) 32.9% (median [IQR]: 80 [50]%), and both eyes together achieved 90.4 \(\pm\) 13.7% \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline  & **Yes** & **No** \\ \hline Are you affiliated with a sports federation? & 18 (34.6\%) & 34 (65.4\%) \\ \hline Do you do any visual warm-up exercises? & 2 (3.8\%) & 50 (96.2\%) \\ \hline Do you have any problems with balance? & 1 (1.9\%) & 51 (98.1\%) \\ \hline Is your overall sports performance as consistent as you would like it to be? & 26 (50.0\%) & 26 (50.0\%) \\ \hline Is your level of sporting performance consistent throughout the game? & 29 (55.8\%) & 23 (44.2\%) \\ \hline Does your performance decrease when you are under pressure? & 18 (34.6\%) & 34 (65.4\%) \\ \hline Does your performance increase when you are under pressure? & 33 (63.5\%) & 19 (36.5\%) \\ \hline Does your performance vary when you train indoors rather than outdoors? & 17 (32.7\%) & 35 (67.3\%) \\ \hline Does your performance decrease when there are shadows on the playing field? & 8(15.4\%) & 44 (84.6\%) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Responses provided by participants regarding their training and performance. Table 2 presents the contrast sensitivity values for both monocular and binocular vision across spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd). Contrast sensitivity, a critical measure of the visual system's ability to discern objects against varying background contrasts, was assessed using standardized testing protocols. The results highlight distinct variations in sensitivity across spatial frequencies, reflecting the participants' ability to detect finer details as the spatial frequency increased. Monocular performance for both the right and left eyes demonstrated a comparable sensitivity across all frequencies, with slight variations likely attributed to individual differences. Binocular contrast sensitivity, as expected, outperformed monocular measures at each frequency, underscoring the benefits of binocular summation in enhancing visual perception. The mean fixation disparity for binocular status was \(-\)0.004 \(\pm\) 0.088 (median [IQR]: \(-\)0.128 [0.12]) minutes of arc. The mean value for base-out horizontal fusional vergence was 2.1 \(\pm\) 2.6 (median [IQR]: 1.4 [0.75]) minutes of arc at the breaking point and 0.9 \(\pm\) 1.9 (median [IQR]: 0.6 [0.4]) minutes of arc at the recovery point. Similarly, the base-in horizontal vergence measured 1.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 (median [IQR]: 1.4 [0.8]) minutes of arc at the breakpoint and 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.4 (median [IQR]: 0.6 [0.5]) minutes of arc at the recovery point. The mean stereopsis value was 67.18 \(\pm\) 43.6 (median [IQR]: 40 [40]) seconds of arc. Table 3 summarizes key results for visual memory, identification, anticipation time, peripheral awareness, and hand-eye coordination. Players who reported satisfaction with their performance on the playing field (n = 26) demonstrated significantly faster response times in both visual memory (satisfied: 1.38 \(\pm\) 0.27 s; not satisfied: 1.63 \(\pm\) 0.42 s; \(p\) = 0.039) and anticipation time (satisfied: 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.20 s; not satisfied: 0.16 \(\pm\) 0.20 s; \(p\) = 0.022) compared to those who were not satisfied with their performance (n = 26). These results suggest a positive relationship between self-perceived performance satisfaction and faster response speeds.