Cognitive Flexibility Predicts Live-Fire Rifle Marksmanship in Airborne Cadets: A Pilot Study

TL;DR

This study found that cognitive flexibility and processing speed are linked to better rifle marksmanship in airborne cadets, more so than physical fitness.

Contribution

The study introduces a predictive model showing cognitive flexibility as a key factor in live-fire rifle performance among cadets.

Findings

Faster cognitive flexibility (CTT-2) was significantly associated with higher rifle marksmanship scores.

A regression model using CTT-2 time and inhibitory control accuracy predicted marksmanship performance.

Physical fitness (ACFT scores) did not significantly correlate with rifle marksmanship.

Abstract

Background: Executive functions may underpin performance in live-fire tasks, whereas evidence for global physical fitness is mixed. We quantified the associations between cognitive flexibility (CF), inhibitory control (IC), overall physical fitness, and rifle marksmanship in cadets, and derived a parsimonious predictive model. Methods: Twenty second-year male airborne cadets (mean age 21.7 ± 2.2 years) completed a live-fire Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) qualification (40 targets at 50–300 m); the Color Trails Test (CTT-1 and CTT-2; interference index) to index CF and processing speed; a stop-signal–style task (CogniFit) to assess IC indexed by NO-GO accuracy and GO-trial response time; and the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT). Associations were examined with Spearman correlations. Multiple linear regression with backward elimination and Bayesian model comparison evaluated predictive models. Results: Faster CTT-2 performance was associated with higher BRM scores (ρ = −0.48, p = 0.032), with a similar association for CTT-1 (ρ = −0.46, p = 0.042). The best-fitting regression model included CTT-2 time and IC–accuracy (adjusted R2 = 0.345; RMSE = 7.03), with CTT-2 time the only significant predictor of BRM (b = −0.330, p = 0.006). Bayesian model comparison independently favored a parsimonious CTT-2–only model (P(M|data) = 0.222; BFM = 5.41; BF10 = 1.00; R2 = 0.352). ACFT scores were not significantly associated with BRM. Conclusions: CF and processing speed are key correlates of live–fire rifle marksmanship in cadets, suggesting value in integrating executive–function elements into marksmanship training. Replication in larger cohorts is warranted.

Figures