Institutes
Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Athlete (1)
- Motor-cognitive (1)
- Sport (1)
- Testing (1)
- Training (1)
- agility (1)
- anticipation (1)
- injury prevention (1)
- integrative neuromotor training (1)
- non-contact injuries (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
- Sportwissenschaften (1)
Background/Objectives: Agility and cognitive abilities are typically assessed separately by different motor and cognitive tests. While many agility tests lack a reactive decision-making component, cognitive assessments are still mainly based on computer-based or paper-pencil tests with low ecological validity. This study is the first to validate the novel SKILLCOURT technology as an integrated assessment tool for agility and cognitive-motor performance.
Methods: Thirty-two healthy adults performed agility (Star Run), reactive agility (Random Star Run) and cognitive-motor (executive function test, 1-back decision making) performance assessments on the SKILLCOURT. Cognitive-motor tests included lower limb responses in a standing position to increase the ecological validity when compared to computer-based tests. Test results were compared to established motor and agility tests (countermovement jump, 10 m linear sprint, T-agility tests) as well as computer-based cognitive assessments (choice-reaction, Go-NoGo, task switching, memory span). Correlation and multiple regression analyses quantified the relation between SKILLCOURT performance and motor and cognitive outcomes.
Results: Star Run and Random Star Run tests were best predicted by linear sprint (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and T-agility performance (r = 0.77, p < 0.001), respectively. The executive function test performance was well explained by computer-based assessments on choice reaction speed and cognitive flexibility (r = 0.64, p < 0.001). The 1-back test on the SKILLCOURT revealed moderate but significant correlations with the computer-based assessments (r = 0.47, p = 0.007).
Conclusion: The results support the validity of the SKILLCOURT technology for agility and cognitive assessments in more ecologically valid cognitive-motor tasks. This technology provides a promising alternative to existing performance assessment tools.
Adapting movements rapidly to unanticipated external stimuli is paramount for athletic performance and to prevent injuries. We investigated the effects of a 4-week open-skill choice-reaction training intervention on unanticipated jump-landings. Physically active adults (n = 37; mean age 27, standard deviation 2.7 years, 16 females, 21 males) were randomly allocated to one of two interventions or a control group (CG). Participants in the two intervention groups performed a 4-week visuomotor open skill choice reaction training, one for the upper and one for the lower extremities. Before and after the intervention, two different types of countermovement jumps with landings in split stance position were performed. In the (1) pre-planned condition, we informed the participants regarding the landing position (left or right foot in front position) before the jump. In the (2) unanticipated condition, this information was displayed after take-off (350–600 ms reaction time before landing). Outcomes were landing stability [peak vertical ground reaction force (pGRF) and time to stabilization (TTS)], and landing-related decision-making quality (measured by the number of landing errors). To measure extremity-specific effects, we documented the number of correct hits during the trained drills. A two-factorial (four repeated measures: two conditions, two time factors; three groups) ANCOVA was carried out; conditions = unanticipated versus pre-planned condition, time factors = pre versus post measurement, grouping variable = intervention allocation, co-variates = jumping time and self-report arousal. The training improved performance over the intervention period (upper extremity group: mean of correct choice reaction hits during 5 s drill: +3.0 hits, 95% confidence interval: 2.2–3.9 hits; lower extremity group: +1.6 hits, 0.6–2.6 hits). For pGRF (F = 8.4, p < 0.001) and landing errors (F = 17.1, p < 0.001) repeated measures effect occurred. Significantly more landing errors occurred within the unanticipated condition for all groups and measurement days. The effect in pGRF is mostly impacted by between-condition differences in the CG. No between-group or interaction effect was seen for these outcomes: pGRF (F = 0.4, p = 0.9; F = 2.3, p = 0.1) landing errors (F = 0.5, p = 0.6; F = 2.3, p = 0.1). TTS displayed a repeated measures (F = 4.9, p < 0.001, worse values under the unanticipated condition, improvement over time) and an interaction effect (F = 2.4, p = 0.03). Healthy adults can improve their choice reaction task performance by training. As almost no transfer to unanticipated landing successfulness or movement quality occurred, the effect seems to be task-specific. Lower-extremity reactions to unanticipated stimuli may be improved by more specific training regimens.