Effects of in-situ stroboscopic training on visual, visuomotor and reactive agility in youth volleyball players

Abstract

Background Stroboscopic training is based on an exercise with intermittent visual stimuli that force a greater demand on the visuomotor processing for improving performance under normal vision. While the stroboscopic effect is used as an effective tool to improve information processing in general perceptual-cognitive tasks, there is still a lack of research focused on identifying training protocols for sport-specific settings. Therefore, we aimed at assessing the effects of in-situ stroboscopic training on visual, visuomotor and reactive agility in young volleyball players. Methods Fifty young volleyball athletes (26 males and 24 females; mean age, 16.5 ± 0.6 years) participated in this study and were each divided randomly into an experimental group and a control group, who then both performed identical volleyball-specific tasks, with the experimental group under stroboscopic influence. The participants were evaluated three times using laboratory based tests for simple and complex reaction speed, sensory sensitivity and saccade dynamics; before the after the 6-week-long training (short-term effect) and 4 weeks later (long-term effect). In addition, a field test investigated the effects of the training on reactive agility. Results A significant TIME vs GROUP effect was observed for (1) simple motor time (p = 0.020, ηp2 = 0.08), with improvement in the stroboscopic group in the post-test and retention test (p = 0.003, d = 0.42 and p = 0.027, d = 0.35, respectively); (2) complex reaction speed (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.22), with a large post-test effect in the stroboscopic group (p < 0.001, d = 0.87) and a small effect in the non-stroboscopic group (p = 0.010, d = 0.31); (3) saccade dynamics (p = 0.011, ηp2 = 0.09), with post-hoc tests in the stroboscopic group not reaching significance (p = 0.083, d = 0.54); and (4) reactive agility (p = 0.039, ηp2 = 0.07), with a post-test improvement in the stroboscopic group (p = 0.017, d = 0.49). Neither sensory sensitivity nor simple reaction time was statistically significantly affected as a result of the training (p > 0.05). A significant TIME vs GENDER effect was observed for saccadic dynamics (p = 0.003, ηp2 = 0.226) and reactive agility (p = 0.004, ηp2 = 0.213), with stronger performance gains in the females. Conclusions There was a larger effectiveness from the 6-week volleyball-specific training in the stroboscopic group compared to the non-stroboscopic group. The stroboscopic training resulted in significant improvements on most measures (three of five) of visual and visuomotor function with more marked enhancement in visuomotor than in sensory processing. Also, the stroboscopic intervention improved reactive agility, with more pronounced performance gains for short-term compared to the long-term changes. Gender differences in response to the stroboscopic training are inconclusive, therefore our findings do not offer a clear consensus.