Comparison of Cortical–Basal Ganglia and Cortical–Cerebellar Circuits in Athletes of Cognitive and Motor Sports

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistance Professor at Bu-Ali Sina University

2 Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Purpose: Since cortical and subcortical neural structures are involved in both cognitive and motor functions, the present study aimed to compare the performance of cortical–basal ganglia and cortical–cerebellar circuits in athletes from cognitive and motor sports.
Methods: The participants included 213 individuals consisting of chess players, track and field athletes, and non‑athletes, with 71 participants in each group (age: 17.54 ± 2.25 years). The Neurocircuit Questionnaire was used for data collection. Differences between the groups were analyzed using the non‑parametric Kruskal–Wallis test.
Results: The results revealed significant differences among track and field athletes, chess players, and non‑athletes in cortical–basal ganglia circuits (P ≤ 0.001, H = 146.14) and cortical–cerebellar circuits (P ≤ 0.001, H = 148.04). Athletes (both chess and track and field) showed better performance and higher scores than non‑athletes. In the three‑group comparison, the highest performance in both circuits was observed in chess players, followed by track and field athletes, and then non‑athletes.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that the involvement of these neural circuits in motor processing and the motor demands of sports disciplines may contribute to the superior performance of these circuits in athletes compared to non‑athletes. Moreover, in chess players, the cognitive pathways of these circuits may be further strengthened due to the high cognitive demands associated with performance.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Atherton M, Zhuang J, Bart WM, Hu X, He S. A functional MRI study of high-level cognition. I. The game of chess. Cognitive Brain Research. 2003;16(1):26-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00206-9.
  2. Koziol LF, Budding DE. Subcortical structures and cognition: Implications for neuropsychological assessment: Springer; 2009. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-84868-6.
  3. Albright TD, Kandel ER, Posner MI. Cognitive neuroscience. Current opinion in neurobiology. 2000;10(5):612-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4388(00)00132-X.
  4. Koshiyama D, Fukunaga M, Okada N, Yamashita F, Yamamori H, Yasuda Y, et al. Role of subcortical structures on cognitive and social function in schizophrenia. Scientific reports. 2018;8(1):1183.

10.1038/s41598-017-18950-2.

  1. Price CJ. The evolution of cognitive models: From neuropsychology to neuroimaging and back. Cortex. 2018;107:37-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.12.020 6. Wan X, Nakatani H, Ueno K, Asamizuya T, Cheng K, Tanaka K. The neural basis of intuitive best next-move generation in board game experts. Science. 2011;331(6015):341 6. doi: 10.1126/science.1194732.
  2. Duan X, He S, Liao W, Liang D, Qiu L, Wei L, et al. Reduced caudate volume and enhanced striatal-DMN integration in chess experts. Neuroimage. 2012;60(2):1280-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.047
  3. Daw ND, Niv Y, Dayan P. Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nature neuroscience. 2005;8(12):1704-11. 10.1038/nn1560.
  4. Gläscher J, Daw N, Dayan P, O'Doherty JP. States versus rewards: dissociable neural prediction error signals underlying model-based and model-free reinforcement learning. Neuron. 2010;66(4):585-95. 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.04.016.
  5. Di Martino A, Scheres A, Margulies DS, Kelly A, Uddin LQ, Shehzad Z, et al. Functional connectivity of human striatum: a resting state FMRI study. Cerebral cortex. 2008;18(12):2735-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhn041.
  6. King-Casas B, Tomlin D, Anen C, Camerer CF, Quartz SR, Montague PR. Getting to know you: reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science. 2005;308(5718):78-83. 10.1126/science.1108062.
  7. Monchi O, Petrides M, Strafella AP, Worsley KJ, Doyon J. Functional role of the basal ganglia in the planning and execution of actions. Annals of Neurology: Official Journal of the American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society. 2006;59(2):257-64.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20742.

  1. Balleine BW, Liljeholm M, Ostlund SB. The integrative function of the basal ganglia in instrumental conditioning. Behavioural brain research. 2009;199(1):43-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.10.034.
  2. Graybiel AM. The basal ganglia: learning new tricks and loving it. Current opinion in neurobiology. 2005;15(6):638-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2005.10.006.
  3. Graybiel AM. Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2008;31(1):359-87. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112851.
  4. Chen J, Ruan X-G, Dai L-Z. Behavior cognition computational model based on cerebellum and basal ganglia mechanism. Patt Recognit Artif Intell. 2012;25(1):29-36.
  5. Doyon J, Bellec P, Amsel R, Penhune V, Monchi O, Carrier J, et al. Contributions of the basal ganglia and functionally related brain structures to motor learning. Behavioural brain research. 2009;199(1):61-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.11.012.
  6. Dahlin E, Bäckman L, Neely AS, Nyberg L. Training of the executive component of working memory: subcortical areas mediate transfer effects. Restorative neurology and neuroscience. 2009;27(5):405-19.

10.3233/RNN-2009-0492.

  1. Shamabadi R, Rahimi MD, Khorshidearab ZS, Faramarzi moghadam M, Raeeni S, Kamrani A. Development, validity, and reliability of Neural Circuits Questionnaire (NCQ). Applied Neuropsychology: Adult. 2022:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2022.2089040.
  2. Jacobi H, Faber J, Timmann D, Klockgether T. Update cerebellum and cognition. Journal of neurology. 2021:1-5. 10.1007/s00415-021-10486-w.
  3. Middleton FA, Strick PL. Basal ganglia output and cognition: evidence from anatomical, behavioral, and clinical studies. Brain and cognition. 2000;42(2):183-200. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1999.1099.
  4. Squire L, Berg D, Bloom FE, Du Lac S, Ghosh A, Spitzer NC. Fundamental neuroscience: Academic press; 2012.
  5. Purves D, Brannon E, Cabeza R, Huettel S, LaBar K, Platt M, et al. Overview of Attention. Principles of Cognitive Neuroscience Vol Sinauer Associates, Inc. 2008:247-70.
  6. Chase WG, Simon HA. Perception in chess. Cognitive psychology. 1973;4(1):55-81.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2.

  1. Pierce JE, Péron J. The basal ganglia and the cerebellum in human emotion. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience. 2020;15(5):599-613. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa076.
  2. Bostan AC, Strick PL. The basal ganglia and the cerebellum: nodes in an integrated network. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2018;19(6):338-50. doi: 10.1038/s41583-018-0002-7.
  3. Yahya K. The basal ganglia corticostriatal loops and conditional learning. Reviews in the Neurosciences. 2021;32(2):181-90. https://doi.org/10.1515/revneuro-2020-0047.
  4. Bastian A, Mugnaini E, Thach W. Cerebellum. 1999. https://philpapers.org/rec/BASC.
  5. Schmahmann JD. Disorders of the cerebellum: ataxia, dysmetria of thought, and the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences. 2004;16(3):367-78. https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.16.3.367.

 

Sports Psychology
Volume 17, Issue 1
2025
Pages 155-171

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 23 September 2024
  • Revise Date: 30 December 2024
  • Accept Date: 18 February 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics