auditory stimuli between simple and choice RT tasks. For instance, Kida et al. (2005) reported that baseball experts had shorter RTs than tennis players and nonathletes in a Go/Nogo RT task but not in a simple RT task. Blind individuals also showed superior auditory choice RTs compared with sighted individuals in a divided attention task (Kujala et al. 1997) and a spatial attention task (Chen et al. 2006). Moreover, early-blind individuals had shorter RTs than sighted individuals in selective attention tasks, but not in a simple RT task, indicating enhanced attentional performance in early-blind individuals (Collignon and De Volder, 2009; Collignon et al. 2006). Based on previous studies, it was assumed that blind footballers with visual impairments would have shorter auditory choice RTs than sighted nonathletes. Given the superiority of blind footballers in choice RT tasks, it should be determined whether their shorter choice RTs are due to rapid identification of sound direction or faster processing of auditory input and motor output. However, it remains unknown whether blind footballers have shorter auditory simple RTs and choice RTs than sighted athletes, who are required to produce a faster response largely in the visual modality. Taken together, the present study aimed to compare simple RT, choice RT, and response accuracy among blind footballers, sighted footballers, and nonathletes. We hypothesized that blind footballers would have shorter RTs than sighted footballers in the choice RT tasks, but not in the simple RT task. We also hypothesized that blind footballers would show higher overall response accuracy and less front-back confusion. Methods Participants Participants were blind footballers (n = 10; mean age = 27.6 ± 5.3 years; playing experience = 8.0 ± 4.2 years), sighted college footballers (n = 11; mean age = 19.2 ± 1.2 years; playing experience = 12.4 ± 2.2 years), and healthy sighted nonathletes (n = 11; mean age = 22.7 ± 2.9 years; no regular exercise or training), based on the experimental design of the previous study (Campayo-Pierna et al. 2017). The sample size was based on an a priori power analysis for the within-between interaction in a repeated measures ANOVA (estimated effect size of f = .25, α =.