Does Sport-Specific Experience Affect Reaction Times in the Premotor Phase?

Fumiaki Onishi, Shinshiro Mineta, N. Hirose
{"title":"Does Sport-Specific Experience Affect Reaction Times in the Premotor Phase?","authors":"Fumiaki Onishi, Shinshiro Mineta, N. Hirose","doi":"10.4172/2324-9080.1000319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: When reacting in a sport-specific situation, athletes use body movements as cues. For example, soccer players use lower body movements as cues, while volleyball players use upper body movements as cues. Despite differences in these focal points, both groups of players use specific cues to recognize sport-specific situations, based on sports-specific experience. This paper aims to investigate how sports-specific knowledge and experience affect reaction times associated with anticipation and prediction by comparing responses during simple and complex tasks performed by athletes with different backgrounds (soccer and volleyball). \n \nMethods: Twenty-six collegiate male soccer players (20.0 ± 0.77 years) and twenty-one collegiate male volleyball players (19.8 ± 0.98 years) completed video-based single direction (SDRT) and multiple direction (MDRT) reactive agility test trials. Participants reacted to a soccer pass that was executed by the model in the video. Both groups completed a questionnaire about the reaction cue used. A two-factor mixed analysis of variance, with the withinfactor as “Tasks” (i.e., SDRT, MDRT) and the between-factor as “Sports” (i.e., Soccer, Volleyball), analyzed the main effects and interactions. The generalized η2 was used to compare the withinand between-factors, and Cohen’s d was used to compare the effect size between groups. For the questionnaire, a chi-square test of independence was used. \n \nResults: The time from presentation of the stimulus to the time when the participant started to move was shorter in the simple task condition (i.e., SDRT; p<0.01), and for more experienced soccer players (p<0.01). The generalized η2 was larger in the betweenfactor “Sports” than the within-factor “Tasks.” The Cohen’s d between tasks was greater in the volleyball group than the soccer group. No significant differences in the questionnaire responses were found between sports groups. \n \nConclusion: These results suggest that sport-specific experience affects reaction times in the premotor phase.","PeriodicalId":90574,"journal":{"name":"Journal of athletic enhancement","volume":"4 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of athletic enhancement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2324-9080.1000319","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: When reacting in a sport-specific situation, athletes use body movements as cues. For example, soccer players use lower body movements as cues, while volleyball players use upper body movements as cues. Despite differences in these focal points, both groups of players use specific cues to recognize sport-specific situations, based on sports-specific experience. This paper aims to investigate how sports-specific knowledge and experience affect reaction times associated with anticipation and prediction by comparing responses during simple and complex tasks performed by athletes with different backgrounds (soccer and volleyball). Methods: Twenty-six collegiate male soccer players (20.0 ± 0.77 years) and twenty-one collegiate male volleyball players (19.8 ± 0.98 years) completed video-based single direction (SDRT) and multiple direction (MDRT) reactive agility test trials. Participants reacted to a soccer pass that was executed by the model in the video. Both groups completed a questionnaire about the reaction cue used. A two-factor mixed analysis of variance, with the withinfactor as “Tasks” (i.e., SDRT, MDRT) and the between-factor as “Sports” (i.e., Soccer, Volleyball), analyzed the main effects and interactions. The generalized η2 was used to compare the withinand between-factors, and Cohen’s d was used to compare the effect size between groups. For the questionnaire, a chi-square test of independence was used. Results: The time from presentation of the stimulus to the time when the participant started to move was shorter in the simple task condition (i.e., SDRT; p<0.01), and for more experienced soccer players (p<0.01). The generalized η2 was larger in the betweenfactor “Sports” than the within-factor “Tasks.” The Cohen’s d between tasks was greater in the volleyball group than the soccer group. No significant differences in the questionnaire responses were found between sports groups. Conclusion: These results suggest that sport-specific experience affects reaction times in the premotor phase.
运动特异性经验会影响前运动阶段的反应时间吗?
目的:当运动员在特定的运动情境中做出反应时,他们会使用身体动作作为线索。例如,足球运动员使用下半身动作作为提示,而排球运动员使用上半身动作作为提示。尽管这些焦点存在差异,但两组球员都基于特定的运动经验,使用特定的线索来识别特定的运动情境。本文旨在通过比较不同背景的运动员(足球和排球)在简单和复杂任务中的反应,研究运动特定知识和经验如何影响与预期和预测相关的反应时间。方法:对26名男大学生足球运动员(20.0±0.77岁)和21名男大学生排球运动员(19.8±0.98岁)进行基于视频的单方向(SDRT)和多方向(MDRT)反应敏捷性测试。参与者对视频中模特执行的足球传球做出反应。两组都完成了一份关于所使用的反应线索的问卷。采用双因素混合方差分析,内因子为“任务”(即SDRT、MDRT),间因子为“运动”(即足球、排球),分析了主效应和交互作用。用广义η2比较因子内因子和因子间因子,用Cohen’s d比较组间效应大小。问卷采用卡方独立性检验。结果:在简单任务条件下(即SDRT),被试从刺激出现到开始移动的时间较短;P <0.01),经验丰富的足球运动员(P <0.01)。“运动”因子间的广义η值大于“任务”因子内的广义η值。排球组的科恩系数高于足球组。不同运动组的问卷调查结果无显著差异。结论:这些结果表明运动特异性经验影响运动前阶段的反应时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书