INTRODUCTION

Fencing, as a high-speed combat sport, demands exceptional visuomotor coordination, ultra-fast reaction times, and superior perceptual-cognitive abilities to anticipate and execute precise actions [1, 2]. In such a dynamic context, laterality—understood as the functional preference for one side of the body over the other [3, 4]—emerges as a potentially critical factor in shaping athletic performance [5].

While handedness (right- or left-handedness) has traditionally been recognized for its tactical impact in fencing [6], influencing fighting style and both offensive and defensive strategies, the influence of ocular dominance and its interaction with handedness remains underexplored in this elite sport.

Research on ocular dominance suggests that this preference is not merely an anatomical curiosity but may have significant implications for tasks requiring visual precision and hand-eye coordination [7, 8].

Understanding and leveraging the preference for one eye over the other is essential for achieving optimal positioning in sport in general, and in fencing in particular. Given that fencing requires precise coordination and rapid decision-making, identifying laterality profiles may be key to optimizing training and performance.

Studies in this area have shown a notable prevalence of left-handed fencers at the highest levels of international rankings, with most of them exhibiting right-eye dominance. Similarly, researchers have observed a relatively high proportion of right-handed athletes who are left-eye dominant.

Experiments involving tasks with spatiotemporal uncertainty have confirmed a visuomotor advantage in response time among individuals with crossed eye-hand laterality. It appears that the dominant eye operates the geniculostriate pathway — in which temporal retinal fibers project ipsilaterally and nasal retinal fibers project contralaterally, resulting in each hemisphere processing the contralateral visual field. Moreover, studies have shown that the specific effects of ocular dominance on hand–eye coordination emerge only when spatial uncertainty exceeds a certain threshold [9].

There are two primary laterality profiles: ipsilateral or uncrossed (where the dominant eye and dominant hand are on the same side), and crossed or contralateral (where the dominant eye and dominant hand are on opposite sides). In the general population, between 10% and 30% exhibit a crossed laterality profile, while 70% to 90% display an uncrossed profile. However, in certain sports, the proportion of athletes with crossed laterality is higher than in the general population, suggesting a potential advantage in specific performance contexts [8].

In sports that require rapid processing of visual information to guide motor responses—such as baseball, cricket, or shooting—a correlation has been identified between eye dominance and performance [10-13]. Within this framework, clarifying the precise effects of these laterality conditions is a critical research priority. Specifically, the question remains whether crossed laterality (e.g., left-eye dominance with right-hand dominance) or uncrossed laterality (dominant eye and hand on the same side) provides an advantage or disadvantage in fencing—a sport defined by lateral movements and complex feints [14, 15]. To date, this issue remains largely unanswered in the current literature.

Crossed laterality is present in a considerable proportion of athletes and may influence performance in fencing and other sports. Identifying whether a fencer exhibits a crossed or uncrossed profile could assist coaches in tailoring physical, technical, tactical, and psychological training to the athlete’s strengths and limitations. Furthermore, it could support the development of training programs that promote more effective athletic development and facilitate talent identification by aligning training strategies with individual motor preferences [16].

This study aims to investigate the distribution of ocular and manual dominance among fencers, examining how these lateral preferences relate to athletes’ performance levels and reaction times. Specifically, it compares the reaction times of fencers grouped according to hand and/or eye dominance (right- or left-dominant), as well as into two broad categories: ipsilateral and crossed laterality. The goal is to establish direct links between laterality profiles, reaction time results, and fencing performance.

Such findings will offer valuable insights into elite fencers, helping determine whether an optimal laterality profile exists that contributes to faster and more effective decision-making during bouts. Understanding these relationships will not only enrich knowledge of the perceptual-motor foundations of fencing performance but also inform more personalized and efficient training.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RESULTS

The results of the chi-square tests, as shown in Table 1, indicate a significant association between laterality and all the studied variables.

Particularly, the results regarding the relationship between crossed laterality and higher competitive level, specific weapon type, or more effective reactions under increasing motor and cognitive complexity are presented below (Table 2).

Among right-eye dominant fencers, most displayed ipsilateral laterality (42 out of 60), meaning their dominant hand was also the right. Conversely, among left-eye dominant fencers, the majority showed contralateral laterality (31 out of 37), meaning their dominant hand was the right. A chi-square analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between right- and left-eye dominant fencers regarding laterality type (p < 0.001). Specifically, left-eye dominant individuals had a significantly higher proportion of crossed laterality, whereas right-eye dominant fencers tended to have uncrossed (ipsilateral) laterality.

The table 3 show that with (75.26%) the dominant hand was right-handed. Of these, the majority (42 of 73, or 57.54%) had ipsilateral laterality, with both the dominant eye and hand on the right side. The remaining 31 right-handed fencers (42.46%) exhibited crossed laterality. Among left- handed fencers, crossed laterality was dominant: 18 out of 24 (75%) had this profile, while only 6 (25%) had ipsilateral laterality.

Overall, 49 had contralateral laterality and 48 had ipsilateral laterality (Table 4). At higher levels of competition (national and international), a greater proportion of fencers displayed contralateral laterality: among international-level athletes, 9 were contralateral and 3 ipsilateral; among national-level athletes, 18 were contralateral and 7 ipsilateral. In contrast, at lower competitive levels (regional and amateur), ipsilateral laterality was more common. At the amateur level, 5 fencers were contralateral and 13 ipsilateral; at the regional level, 17 were contralateral compared to 25 ipsilateral.

In foil, a high proportion of fencers exhibited contralateral laterality (21 out of 28), suggesting that this configuration may either be advantageous or more prevalent in this discipline. In contrast, in épée, ipsilateral laterality was clearly dominant (27 out of 42), which may be related to the technical or tactical demands of the weapon. Sabre showed a relatively balanced distribution between the two profiles (13 vs. 14), indicating no clear preference in this weapon category.

A chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was a significant association between weapon type and laterality. The p-value (0.005) was below the conventional significance threshold (α = 0.05), indicating a statistically significant association between weapon type and laterality.

The table 6 show the P-values from Kruskal–Wallis test and η² effect size estimates are included. Mean values and standard deviations are in milliseconds. In this sense, the fencers with contralateral laterality demonstrated significantly faster reaction times than those with ipsilateral profiles in several tasks. In the Simple Reaction Time (SRT) test, the contralateral group averaged 333 ± 109 ms, compared to 417 ± 143 ms in the ipsilateral group, with a statistically significant difference and a medium effect size.

In the Election Reaction Time (ERT) and Go/No-Go (G/NG) tasks, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups. However, contralateral fencers still showed numerically faster response times (ERT: 504 ± 92 ms vs. 543 ± 114 ms; G/NG: 543 ± 80 ms vs. 555 ± 98 ms), suggesting that the contralateral advantage may emerge more clearly under conditions of higher cognitive or motor demand.

In tasks requiring higher cognitive and motor complexity—such as decision-making reaction time—the differences between fencers were even more pronounced, favoring significantly shorter times for those with contralateral laterality (DM: 1190 ± 264 ms vs. 1356 ± 336 ms; p < 0.001).

In dynamic variants of the task, such as the retreat decision-making task (DMR), contralateral fencers recorded an average of 1444 ± 189 ms, compared to 1700 ± 242 ms in the ipsilateral group (p < 0.001), with a large effect size, the largest difference observed in the entire study.

Other decision-making subtests also revealed a consistent advantage for contralateral fencers. In the left-lateralized movement (DML), the contralateral group scored 1013 ± 197 ms versus 1118 ± 179 ms in the ipsilateral group (p < 0.001); in the central decision-making movement (DMM), times were 1112 ± 187 ms vs. 1250 ± 251 ms (p = 0.005), both with medium effect sizes. These results reinforce the idea that contralateral laterality may confer an advantage in tasks involving high perceptual and motor demands.

Combining the results from Tables 4 and 5, we can propose an interpretative analysis that outlines potential performance profiles by weapon type, based in the variables with the highest relation of laterality and reaction times:

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study confirm the relevance of visual dominance and laterality in fencing performance [9], offering new insights into the comparative advantages in reaction speed, agility, and perceptual-motor demands associated with different laterality profiles.

This pattern allows visual input (integrated across both hemispheres but functionally biased by the dominant eye) and motor output (coordinated by the hemisphere contralateral to the dominant hand) to be integrated within the same cerebral hemisphere. This configuration avoids the need for interhemispheric transfer, which has been shown to require additional processing time [8], potentially resulting in faster response times for crossed-laterality profiles.

These findings are consistent with previous research in other disciplines, where athletes with crossed laterality are overrepresented compared to the general population—particularly in sports requiring coordinated mobility and precision, such as golf and football [7, 8]. This suggests that crossed laterality may provide a specific competitive advantage in tasks demanding high levels of visuo-motor integration. In contrast, in disciplines without a direct opponent—such as gymnastics, archery, or pistol shooting—non-crossed profiles tend to be more prevalent or show no significant influence on performance [13, 16]. This reinforces the hypothesis that the functional utility of crossed laterality depends on the specific motor and tactical demands of the sport.

Left-handed fencers with crossed laterality may benefit from more efficient sensorimotor integration, improved visuo-motor alignment toward the opponent, and faster reaction capabilities. Moreover, manual dominance—widely recognized for its influence on combat style and tactical decision-making [6]—may be further enhanced when combined with a crossed laterality profile.

From a performance standpoint, the distribution of laterality profiles is not uniform across competition levels. Crossed laterality was significantly more frequent among athletes competing at the national and international levels, while ipsilateral laterality predominated in the regional and amateur levels. Statistical analysis (p = 0.001) confirms that this distribution is not random, suggesting a significant association between laterality type and the competitive level attained.

A relevant relationship was also identified between the type of weapon used and the fencer’s laterality. Specifically, contralateral laterality was more prevalent among foil and sabre fencers, whereas ipsilateral laterality predominated in épée. This pattern may be linked to the specific technical and tactical demands of each weapon and presents a promising avenue for future research on optimal laterality profiles according to weapon type. When combined with existing knowledge on reaction time, physical preparation, and psychological factors [20, 21], these findings could contribute to the development of more tailored training programs for elite athletes, optimized for each fencing discipline.

In parallel, the analysis of reaction times revealed that fencers with contralateral laterality consistently outperformed their ipsilateral counterparts in the most demanding tasks—particularly those requiring decision-making and complex motor execution. These differences were statistically significant in tests with higher cognitive and motor load, such as decision-making with displacement (DMR), in which the contralateral group demonstrated substantially faster response times and large effect sizes. This finding aligns with studies in elite football players, which indicate that crossed laterality (hand-eye-foot) is associated with quicker reaction times in response and directional change tasks, particularly in unpredictable contexts [22].

This research demonstrates a significant relationship between ocular dominance and laterality type. Specifically, left-eyed fencers exhibit a significantly higher proportion of crossed laterality (left-eye dominance combined with right-hand dominance).

Higher levels of competition (national and international) are characterized by a predominance of fencers with contralateral laterality, whereas ipsilateral laterality is more common at regional and amateur levels. This suggests that crossed laterality may confer an advantage in reaching elite performance levels in fencing.

Fencers with contralateral laterality displayed significantly faster reaction times in several tasks, particularly those involving greater cognitive and motor complexity. The most pronounced difference was observed in the DMR test, where contralateral fencers were substantially quicker. This suggests a performance advantage in processing speed and responsiveness under conditions requiring both mental and physical agility. Fencers with contralateral laterality displayed significantly faster reaction times in several tasks, particularly those involving greater cognitive and motor complexity. The most pronounced difference was observed in the DMR test, where contralateral fencers were substantially quicker. This suggests a performance advantage in processing speed and responsiveness under conditions requiring both mental and physical agility.

Although contralateral laterality was associated with faster responses in cognitively demanding tasks, no statistically significant differences were found between the ipsilateral and contralateral groups in the elective reaction time (ERT) or the Go/No-Go (G/NG) task. This indicates that the advantage of crossed laterality may be more pronounced in contexts with higher cognitive or motor load, rather than in simpler or less demanding situations.

A statistically significant association was also found between weapon type (épée, foil, or sabre) and laterality. Contralateral laterality was notably more prevalent among foil fencers, suggesting it may provide a specific advantage or represent a common trait in this weapon. In contrast, ipsilateral laterality predominated clearly in épée. In sabre, laterality distribution was more balanced, although a slight predominance of contralateral profiles—similar to foil—was observed. These differences may reflect the unique technical and tactical demands of each weapon.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the findings of this study suggest that crossed laterality—particularly the combination of left-eye dominance with right-hand dominance—may be linked to an optimal perceptual-motor profile in fencing. This configuration is associated with higher competitive achievement and faster reaction times, especially in situations requiring complex decision-making. Understanding this "optimal laterality profile" could be crucial for developing more personalized and effective training strategies aimed at enhancing speed and decision-making efficacy during bouts.