Broodryk Adele, Skala Filip, Broodryk Retief
Physical Activity, Sport and Recreation Research Focus Area (PhASRec), Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa.
Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Comenius University in Bratislava, 814 99 Bratislava, Slovakia.
J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2025 Jun 24;10(3):239. doi: 10.3390/jfmk10030239.
The motor response to human visual stimuli is unique and differs from the reaction to light-based visual stimuli. While laboratory-based tests offer valuable insights into athletes' basic perceptual-motor abilities, their translation to actual sports-specific tests is limited. Methods: Following a thorough warm-up, 44 collegiate-level male soccer players (age: 24.4 ± 2.5 y, mass: 63.01 ± 7.3 kg, stature: 167.62 ± 6.3 cm) from a tertiary institution completed the following tests: Sports Vision Test (20-light proactive speed test), 40 m sprint test (split times over 5, 10, 20 and 40 m), and a live Reactive Agility Test (RAT) entailing them to sprint, change direction either towards their dominant limb or non-dominant limb in response to a live tester, and sprint again. : Numerous moderate correlations were seen between the RAT and various sprint distances (r > 0.3, ES > 0.3, < 0.05). The reaction speed relationship between the light-based (SVT) and live stimuli (RAT) test yielded a weak relationship (r > 0.4, ES > 0.5, < 0.05). Furthermore, the light-based hand-eye coordination speed did not predict acceleration or top speed, while the total RAT time did explain 10.5% of top speed (40 m). No significant differences in the SVT average and total time were found among playing positions. : The limited correlations observed indicate that light-based reaction training alone may not be sufficient to translate to field-based reactive agility; therefore, training should integrate perceptual-cognitive and motor demands. Future research should refine laboratory-based tests by incorporating contextual elements to enhance ecological validity and further investigate the transferability of these skills from controlled settings to real-world game scenarios.
人类视觉刺激引发的运动反应是独特的，与对基于光的视觉刺激的反应不同。虽然基于实验室的测试能为运动员的基本感知运动能力提供有价值的见解，但将其转化为实际的特定运动测试存在局限性。方法：来自一所高等院校的44名大学水平的男性足球运动员（年龄：24.4±2.5岁，体重：63.01±7.3千克，身高：167.62±6.3厘米）在充分热身之后完成了以下测试：运动视觉测试（20光主动速度测试）、40米短跑测试（5米、10米、20米和40米的分段时间）以及一项现场反应敏捷性测试（RAT），该测试要求他们短跑，根据现场测试人员的指令朝着优势肢体或非优势肢体改变方向，然后再次短跑。：RAT与各种短跑距离之间存在许多中等程度的相关性（r>0.3，ES>0.3，P<0.05）。基于光的（SVT）和现场刺激（RAT）测试之间的反应速度关系呈现出较弱的相关性（r>0.4，ES>0.5，P<0.05）。此外，基于光的手眼协调速度无法预测加速度或最高速度，而RAT总时间确实能解释最高速度（40米）的10.5%。不同比赛位置的SVT平均时间和总时间没有显著差异。：观察到的有限相关性表明，仅基于光的反应训练可能不足以转化为基于场地的反应敏捷性；因此，训练应整合感知认知和运动需求。未来的研究应通过纳入情境元素来完善基于实验室的测试，以提高生态效度，并进一步研究这些技能从受控环境到现实比赛场景的可转移性。
