运动员频闪视觉训练的安全性:不良事件报告的小型综述与拟议框架
Safety of stroboscopic visual training in athletes: a mini-review and proposed framework for adverse-event reporting.
文献信息
| PMID | 42920879 |
|---|---|
| 原文 | 在 PubMed 查看原文 ↗ |
| 发表日期 | 2026 |
| 作者 | Jianjun Li |
| 作者单位 | Xianning Vocational Technical College, Xianning, China. |
| 期刊 | Frontiers in physiology |
| SCI 分区 | Q1 |
| IF | 4.5 |
| 研究类型 | 综述 Meta · 临床 |
| 所属专科 | 耳科 |
中文摘要
频闪视觉训练(SVT)使用间歇性遮挡的眼镜来超负荷加载知觉-认知加工,并已在越来越多的运动情境中受到研究。其对视运动与认知结局的有效性目前已由若干系统综述和荟萃分析进行综合;相比之下,其安全性却很少受到专门审视。本小型综述基于从PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science检索到的27项运动员频闪训练研究,考察了参与者安全性是如何被筛查、监测和报告的,并概述了该干预可能造成伤害的途径:动态任务中的视觉-前庭冲突与定向障碍、因刻意降低视觉而导致的短暂损伤风险、认知与精神疲劳,以及很大程度上尚未被表征的光敏相关风险问题。我们发现,结构化的安全监测仍不常见,但并非完全缺失。三项研究明确报告了主动的症状或不良事件监测,另有一项研究描述了安全监督但未进行结构化的主动症状监测。仅有一项研究报告了定性的耐受性症状。因此,稀疏且异质的安全性报告无法可靠地表征SVT的安全性特征。我们提出了一个与既有伤害报告标准相一致的最低限度筛查与不良事件报告框架。解决这一盲点对于在各类人群和环境中更广泛、更安全地实施SVT十分重要。
英文摘要
Stroboscopic visual training (SVT) uses intermittently occluding eyewear to overload perceptual-cognitive processing, and it has been studied across a growing range of sporting contexts. Its efficacy on visuomotor and cognitive outcomes has now been synthesized by several systematic reviews and meta-analyses; its safety, by contrast, has received little dedicated scrutiny. Drawing on 27 studies of stroboscopic training in athletes identified from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, this mini-review examines how participant safety has been screened, monitored, and reported, and outlines the pathways through which the intervention could plausibly cause harm: visual-vestibular conflict and disorientation during dynamic tasks, transient injury risk arising from deliberately degraded vision, cognitive and mental fatigue, and the largely uncharacterized question of photosensitivity-related risk. We find that structured safety monitoring remains uncommon rather than entirely absent. Three studies clearly reported proactive symptom or adverse-event monitoring, while one additional study described safety oversight without structured proactive symptom surveillance. Only one study reported qualitative tolerability symptoms. The sparse and heterogeneous safety reporting therefore does not allow the safety profile of SVT to be characterized reliably. We propose a minimum screening and adverse-event-reporting framework for SVT, aligned with established harms-reporting standards. Addressing this blind spot is important for wider and safer implementation of SVT across populations and settings.