Abstract
This pilot study examined the effects of a 12-week reaction training program on physical and cognitive performance (choice reaction) in U20 Latvian fencers. Five qualified right-handed male fencers (aged 14.8–18.6 years) completed the Vienna Test System choice reaction task at baseline and after 12 weeks while cycling through five heart rate zones (1–5). Reaction speed (RS), motor speed (MS), choice reaction time (CR), and heart rate (HR) were recorded. Paired-sample t-tests indicated no significant group-level changes: RS (t = 1.46, p = 0.21, d = 0.65, 95% CI [−36.92, 118.92]), MS (t = 2.37, p = 0.07, d = 1.06, 95% CI [−3.14, 40.34]), CR (t = 1.70, p = 0.16, d = 0.76, 95% CI [−37.30, 156.26]), and HR (t = −2.69, p = 0.054, d = −1.20, 95% CI [−12.53, 0.17]). Individual responses revealed that three athletes improved CR in low- to moderate-intensity zones (−12.66% to −27.18%), whereas heart rate increased modestly (1.35% to 9.60%). Given the critical age for developing choice reaction, these findings should be considered as preliminary and exploratory, offering initial insights into how training might influence cognitive performance in young fencers and demonstrating that responses can differ across heart rate zones and among individuals.
1. Introduction
Fencing, which involves attacking and defending using a sword, is included in the Olympic Games []. It is a combat sport that demands open-skill strategies, complex body movements, and tactical play. Athletic performance in fencing reflects how effectively an athlete can execute actions. Like other sports, success relies on multiple physical and mental factors, including reaction time, agility, flexibility, coordination, and decision-making skills [,]. Fencing specifically requires athletes to respond quickly to tactile, visual, and auditory stimuli, which are the primary types of stimuli in fencing [,]. The blade, considered the second fastest object in sports competition, demands extremely rapid reactions. Typically, scoring actions last about 5 s in foil and 15 s in épée []. Therefore, responding effectively is an essential skill and performance [,].
Reaction time (RT) is a fundamental skill influencing success in fencing []. Reacting to a moving object involves several steps: perceiving the stimulus, estimating its speed, adopting an appropriate posture, and making a decision. In situations where multiple responses are possible, athletes rely on choice reaction time, which requires selecting the correct action under time pressure. This advantage is linked to shorter motor response times, which contribute to superior physical performance and, ultimately, better competitive results []. Furthermore, RT acts as an indicator of the efficiency of the cognitive system in processing information []. Cognitive processes are usually evaluated through behavioral measures like reaction time.
Cognitive skills and decision-making are essential for athletic performance in competitive sports, especially in combat sports like fencing [,]. In fencing, athletes need to constantly anticipate their opponent’s moves by interpreting cues or patterns in their behavior [,]. Research indicates that physical exertion and exercise can impact both cognitive performance and reaction time, but individual responses differ [,,,]. Studies using computer-based tasks indicate no significant differences between groups, or that elite or well-trained fencers typically have faster reaction and choice reaction times than less experienced athletes [,].
Some studies indicate that reaction time (RT) in fencers can be improved through training [,,]. Conversely, other research contends that genetic factors mainly influence RT and are less affected by training []. To anticipate attacks, respond, and stay accurate, fencers must extract relevant information from an opponent’s constantly changing posture, distance, movements, or even the current match status []. Therefore, fencing demands quick and accurate decision-making under ongoing competitive pressure, along with an evolving perception of physical effort 18]. Since athletes are always under time limitations, both decision-making and sensorimotor reaction times need to be minimized to increase performance []. Improving the fencing training system involves identifying and justifying new methods for organizing training, based on modern scientific evidence. The Vienna test system (VTS) [] is a psychological assessment device that includes tests of many different constructs, such as reaction time and attention, used by applied practitioners to conduct psychological testing in fencing [,,]. Physical preparation is a key part of fencing performance, including explosive starts, sustained readiness for the right moment to attack, and the ability to make quick decisions []. Reactions are a crucial part of performance and are closely related to cognitive performance in fencers []. Several studies highlight the importance of improving reaction time and response speed to both auditory and visual stimuli, dual-task conditions, the role of speed in a fencer’s hand movements, and various training interventions [,,,,,,,]. This pilot study aimed to assess the effects of a 12-week reaction training program on physical and cognitive performance (choice reaction) in U20 Latvian fencers. We hypothesized that the targeted training program would improve choice reaction performance.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
Five qualified young right-handed male foil fencers from the Latvian national U20 team, all ranked among the top athletes nationally, participated in the study (Table 1). The inclusion criteria included (a) age ranging from 14 to 20 years, which is a critical period for developing choice reaction [], and (b) training at least 4 times per week. Exclusion criteria were (a) use of drugs, medications, or any conditions (neuromuscular diseases), or musculoskeletal injuries that could affect test outcomes, and (b) previous experience with the VTS. A qualified athlete in this study is defined as a fencer who is in the top 10 of the Latvian rankings, has participated in national and international competitions, and has an EFC (European Fencing Confederation, https://www.eurofencing.info/rankings/individual-rankings, URL accessed on 23 October 2025) or FIE (International Fencing Federation, https://fie.org/athletes, URL accessed on 23 October 2025) ranking. Participants ranged in age from 14.8 to 18.6 years (m = 17.04, SD = 1.43), with an average height of 179.2 cm (SD = 6.87) and body weight of 66.02 kg (SD = 10.33). The study followed the ethical regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki. Information about the purpose of the study was given to the participants, and they voluntarily consented to take part. For underage athletes, written informed consent was additionally obtained from parents or legal guardians. The research protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of Riga Stradins University, Latvian Academy of Sport Education (protocol no. 8/3/51813, and approval date 30 July 2023). Participants could withdraw at any time without consequence.
Table 1.
Individual characteristics and ranking of fencers.
2.2. Procedures
The experimental protocol included a baseline assessment (pre-test) and a follow-up assessment after 12 weeks (post-test). None of the participants had previous experience with the cognitive tasks of the Vienna choice reaction test. Therefore, before the intervention, all athletes completed two familiarization sessions, during which they practiced the choice reaction (CR) test while cycling for 30 min on a stationary bike []. This ensured that participants were familiar with the test procedures. One week later, the baseline assessment was conducted. At both pre- and post-test, participants performed the CR test five times while cycling on a cycle ergometer (Wattbike Pro/Trainer, Wattbike Ltd., Nottingham, UK) across five heart rate zones (Z1–Z5), monitored using a Polar heart rate system (Polar Team Pro, Polar Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland). The zones were defined according to a previous study [] and Tanaka’s age-based prediction equations for maximal heart rate [208 − (age × 0.7)] []: zone 1 (50–59% HRmax), zone 2 (60–69% HRmax), zone 3 (70–79% HRmax), zone 4 (80–89% HRmax), and zone 5 (90–100% HRmax).
Upon arriving at the laboratory, participants sat and rested for 10 min. They first did a 10 min warm-up on the cycle ergometer. The protocol was performed in stages, with each stage corresponding to one heart rate zone. Each stage and the CR test lasts between 3 and 5 min. A total of five CR tests were performed. At the end of each stage, participants increased their pedaling intensity to reach the next target zone. During testing, the CR response panel was mounted on the ergometer. Workload progression was not standardized by resistance settings but was instead guided by heart rate response and self-selected pedaling intensity. The entire test took approximately 25–30 min.
Participants were advised to refrain from alcohol, caffeine, and vigorous physical activity for at least 24 h prior to testing. Participants were asked verbally to confirm they followed the pre-test instructions and reported full compliance. If they were noncompliant, testing would be rescheduled.
The Vienna Test System (VTS) is a popular computerized tool used for objectively assessing various psychological constructs. It is commonly employed in sports science to examine how different factors influence cognitive performance []. During the CR test, stimuli include yellow and red circles, auditory tones, and combinations of these. The key stimulus combination requires participants to respond when both a yellow and a red circle appear simultaneously. Two output variables from the CR test were recorded. Reaction speed (RS) is the time elapsed from when the relevant stimulus appears to when the participant’s finger lifts from the rest position button. It indicates how quickly an individual perceives a stimulus and initiates a response. Motor speed (MS) represents the second component of CR and is defined as the interval from when the finger lifts off the rest button to when the designated response is pressed. MS provides an index of processing and motor execution speed. The CR test lasts between 3 and 5 min. All procedures were non-invasive and supervised by the researcher and fencing coach.
2.3. Intervention
The modified reaction training program [,] was conducted twice weekly for 12 weeks (July–September 2024), with each session lasting 30 min and including 10 exercises (Appendix A, Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3). This program was performed alongside participants’ regular fencing and general training. The training protocol involved both general and fencing drills and was adapted from different sports to improve reaction time and cognitive performance [Table 2]. Each general and regular fencing session, without emphasizing reaction exercises, began with a standardized warm-up and continued with stretching, jogging, footwork, and tactical and technical training. Special training consisted of 10 reaction exercises using various equipment, including balls of different sizes and weights, tennis balls, jump ropes, and agility ladders. Exercises included catching balls, performing single-leg hops, cone-color reaction tasks, fencing drills, and combined movement and cognitive challenges such as jumping while catching a glove and shuttle runs. Sessions ended with cool-down exercises. The first author and a fencing coach oversaw all training sessions. Every fencer participated in each session.
Table 2.
The weekly training schedule.
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2016 and Jeffreys’s Amazing Statistics Program (JASP) version 0.18.3. Due to the limited sample size and based on earlier research [,], descriptive statistics, including the minimum (Min), maximum (Max), mean (m), standard deviation (SD), effect sizes (Cohen’s d), confidence intervals (CIs), and percentage change (%Change), were calculated. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. A paired t-test (t) was used for data analysis. The significance level was p < 0.05. Percentage change (%Change) was calculated using the following formula:
%Change = [(mpost − mpre)/mpre] * × 100.
3. Results
The results are divided into two parts: (1) overall pre–post changes in reaction speed (RS), motor speed (MS), choice reaction (CR), and heart rate (HR), and (2) individual zone-based profiles showing within-athlete changes over the 12-week training period. For RS, MS, and CR, lower values and reduction (milliseconds, ms) indicate faster responses, while HR values are given as average beats per minute (bpm).
3.1. Overall Pre–Post Results of RS, MS, CR, and HR
Reaction Speed (RS). Descriptive statistics for RS across participants are presented in Table 3. Overall post-test results showed a decrease in RS for S1, S3, and S5, indicating faster responses. The most improvement was seen in S1, with RS decreasing from m = 560.4, SD = 63.85 ms at pre-test to m = 415.4, SD = 27.55 ms at post-test, a −25.87% change. S3 and S5 showed moderate improvements of −12.45% and −8.67%, respectively. Conversely, S2 exhibited an increase in RS (3.49%), indicating slower responses, while S4 remained unchanged.
Table 3.
Overall RS results (n = 5).
The motor speed (MS). Table 4 shows the results of MS, which demonstrated consistent improvements in four athletes. S1 indicated the greatest change, decreasing from m = 127.4, SD = 21.36 ms to m = 85.40, SD = 17.53 ms, reflecting a −32.96% and a large reduction. Notable decreases were also observed in S5 (−26.64%), S3 (−17.14%), and S2 (−15.36%). S4 showed an increase (4.85%).
Table 4.
Overall MS results (n = 5).
Choice reaction (CR) and heart rate (HR). CR followed a similar trend (Table 5), with S1 decreasing substantially (m = 687.8, SD = 76.02 ms to m = 500.8, SD = 38.80 ms), resulting in a −27.18% reduction in post-test. The HR was increased from m = 124.9, SD = 26.4 to m = 141.4, SD = 28.5 bpm (8.85%). CR improvements were also evident in S3 (−13.37%), with improvements in HR (9.6%) and S5 (−12.66%), as well as HR (2.39%) in the post-test. Conversely, CR in S2 (0.53%), with a HR (1.35%), and S4 (1.25%), HR (1.5%) showed negligible increases.
Table 5.
Overall CR and HR results in pre- and post-tests (n = 5).
Group level. Paired-sample t-tests (Table 6) examined pre- and post-test differences in RS, MS, CR, and HR. Shapiro–Wilk tests indicated normal distributions for all variables (p > 0.05). No significant changes were observed for RS, t(4) = 1.46, p = 0.218, d = 0.65, or CR, t(4) = 1.70, p = 0.163, d = 0.76. However, effect sizes indicate moderate changes in cognitive-motor performance. MS showed a trend toward improvement, t(4) = 2.37, p = 0.076, d = 1.06, and HR approached significance, t(4) = −2.69, p = 0.054, d = −1.20.
Table 6.
t-test results for RS, MS, CR, and HR.
3.2. Individual Zone-Based Profiles of Athletes
The results of individual zones are shown in Figure 1. Subject 1 showed consistent and substantial cognitive performance improvements across all zones (Figure 1a). RS decreased by −17% to −34% across Z1–Z5, with the largest in Z2 (−34%). MS is dramatically affected, especially in Z4 (−47.6%) and Z1 (−38.7%). Correspondingly, CR decreased between −21.9% and −32.4%. However, HR responses increased by 10–18% across all zones. S2’s profile (Figure 1b) was more mixed. RS was reduced in Z1 (−13%) and Z3 (−4.7%), but increased in Z2 (24.8%) and Z4 (10%). MS consistently improved (−7% to −30%), with the greatest change in Z1. Results for CR show a reduction in Z1 (−15.7%) and Z3 (−6.9%) but an increase in Z2 (19.4%) and Z4 (7%). HR responses were stable to slightly elevated (−6% to 5.6%).
Figure 1.
Individual zone profiles per athlete (n = 5); subfigures (a–e) correspond to subjects 1–5, respectively.
S3 showed a strong and generalized reduction across most zones (Figure 1c). RS decreased by −24% in Z1, −17.8% in Z2, and around −4% in Z3–Z5. MS shows a reduction in all zones (−8% to −25%), with the best in Z1. CR decreased by −24.5% in Z1, −17% in Z2, and moderately in Z3–Z5. HR patterns, however, indicated modest decreases in Z1 (−3.3%) but increases up to 25% in Z4. The results for S4 show the most variable profile (Figure 1d). RS decreased in Z1 (−8.7%) and Z3 (−6.4%), but increased in Z2 (6.7%) and Z4 (11.6%). MS increased in Z1 (19.1%) and Z2 (4.2%), and stability was maintained in Z5. CR showed small changes (−2% to 8.8%). HR increased modestly across most zones (0.6% to 5.2%). The results of RS for S5 show a reduction in Z1–Z4 (−7% to −16%), but Z5 increased by 2.6%. MS decreased across all zones (−16% to −37.5%), with the largest reduction in Z1. CR also decreased across the zones (−4.7% to −21.3%). HR changes were minimal (−0.9% to 5.2%).
4. Discussion
This study examined the effects of a 12-week reaction training program on physical and cognitive performance in U20 fencers. The main findings indicate that at the group level, paired-samples t-tests for reaction speed (RS), motor speed (MS), choice reaction (CR), and heart rate (HR) did not reach statistical significance. Nevertheless, individual-level analyses revealed that choice reaction performance improved post-intervention in athletes S1, S3, and S5, while it decreased for athletes S2 and S4, particularly when tested at different heart rate zones, highlighting individual variability. Heart rate changes were modest across participants, indicating that improvements in choice reaction performance were not strongly associated with cardiovascular responses. These findings should be interpreted as preliminary and exploratory, providing initial insights into how training may influence cognitive performance in young fencers and illustrating that responses can vary across heart rate zones and among individuals.
The cognitive performance is influenced by variables such as training intensity, duration, and the task, interacting to create complex effects on performance outcomes []. McMorris [] proposed that exercise influences cognition by activating the hypothalamic and sympathetic–adrenal systems, thereby increasing catecholamine release. These biochemical changes affect neural processes involved in attention and information processing, though the exact relationship between exercise intensity and cognitive performance remains complex and not fully understood. Specifically, post-intervention CR decreased across fencers (m = 500.8, SD = 38.8 to m = 419.4, SD = 28.97 ms) compared to baseline (m = 687.8, SD = 76.02 to m = 480.2, SD = 7.69 ms), corresponding to percentage changes ranging from 0.53% to −27.18%. These findings indicate that although individual results varied, the group results, including the lack of a significant effect (p > 0.05) due to sample size, all participants completed the 12-week reaction training without dropouts, indicating that this training protocol is feasible to implement and support in future, larger-scale studies. Concurrently, changes in heart rate responses varied among participants (Table 4), highlighting individual differences in physiological adaptation to the intervention.
Furthermore, individual optimal heart rate zones for achieving faster choice reaction times were observed in zones 1–2 (HR range: 106–118 bpm), with noticeable variation among participants (Figure 1). This result is consistent with earlier studies [,,,,], which have shown that low to moderate intensity exercise improves response speed to choice reaction and visual stimuli. Specifically, the relationship between reaction time and exercise intensity seems to follow an exponential pattern: reaction time decreases as exercise intensity increases to the aerobic threshold (around 120 bpm), then plateaus between 130–155 bpm, and gradually rises again beyond the anaerobic threshold, continuing up to maximal effort. Stimuli further influence the impact of higher intensities (above 160 bpm).
In contrast to our findings, some studies have shown that low-intensity exercise does not significantly influence cognitive task performance, while higher intensities may improve reaction speed [,,,]. This partially aligns with previous research suggesting a U-shaped relationship of training intensity and cognitive performance, where moderate exercise has a beneficial effect but high-intensity training may impair performance []. However, the inverted-U model has faced criticism, and newer studies highlight that the impact of training on cognitive performance is related to the task []. Furthermore, athletes and non-athletes respond differently to exercise. Several studies comparing experienced athletes with novices indicate that athletes tend to benefit more from exercise, likely because of their greater familiarity with high physiological stress and the substantial physical, emotional, and cognitive demands involved [,,,].
In this study, we also investigated the effect of a 12-week training program on heart rate (HR). The increase was modest, ranging from 1.35% to 9.60% across participants, with the largest increase observed in S3 (9.60%) and the smallest in S2 (1.35%). Exercise is known to trigger both immediate and long-term adaptations in HR []; however, the relatively low training load of the current program may explain the limited HR changes in some athletes. Although sessions were held twice weekly for 30 min over 12 weeks, the ten exercises included were not enough to produce significant cardiovascular adaptation. Endurance training causes significant changes in cardio-autonomic regulation [], which were not achieved in the current intervention. Importantly, improvements in CR performance observed in S1, S3, and S5 occurred despite modestly elevated HRs. This aligns with dual-task paradigms [,], where athletes must maintain cognitive performance while performing physical tasks, reflecting adaptations relevant to the training and fencing competition. Previous research has also shown that fatigue caused by high-intensity exercise generally leads to increased and longer reaction times [].
Task complexity is another key factor affecting how exercise influences cognitive performance. Cognitive load results from the interaction between exercise, brain catecholamines, which increase arousal by activating the reticular formation, and the cognitive task. In this study, athletes S2 and S4 showed increased CR, aligning with previous findings []. A likely reason is that the combination of pedaling for 30 min and performing the test created a higher cognitive and physical load, leading to longer reaction times. Conversely, other fencers (S1, S3, and S5) completed these complex tasks with shorter CRs. The longer CRs seen in S2 and S4 may be related to the wait-and-see strategy [], where additional cognitive processes like decision-making and information integration extend reaction time. Therefore, the amount and type of information needed to generate a response depend on the task and help explain individual differences in CR performance []. Moreover, caution is advised when comparing results from different studies, especially when the CR or experimental setup varies []. In this study, we used the CR test on a bicycle, a new laboratory measure for this group, since fencers usually do not use the VTS in their regular training. The familiarization was limited to 2 sessions, which may explain differences in cognitive performance. This could make measurements reflect the effect of being new to an unfamiliar dual task, where cycling demands much cognitive capacity and could interfere with other tasks (VTS), rather than measuring true cognitive impact.
Attention, which depends on executive functions like inhibitory control and working memory, also affects choice reaction time and overall performance [,]. In fencing, cues can appear anywhere in the visual field, requiring athletes to use peripheral vision and quickly move their gaze through rapid eye movements. Previous research shows that elite fencers are generally better at focusing on these cues []. In this study, two athletes (S2 and S4) showed longer choice reaction times, possibly indicating reduced or distracted attention, which can hinder information processing and fencing performance. Importantly, the critical age for developing CR is between approximately 15 and 20 years old []. In this study, the fencers were in a crucial age period when differences in reaction time and related variables are most likely to be detected. However, it is important to recognize that multiple factors, including age, ambient temperature, type of stimulus, nerve conduction quality, and receptor sensitivity, influence individual differences in outcomes. While the findings partly support the hypothesis that 12 weeks of training could improve choice reaction, there are several limitations. First, the small sample size of five males was determined by participant availability and by the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the study during data collection, rather than by predefined sample size calculations. Especially considering the critical age for developing choice reaction [] and the fact that athletes (under 20 years old) and competing at the national or international level. Although they represent a rare and highly selective group, this complicates the recruitment of larger cohorts. Additionally, this study’s limitations include the lack of a control group and the absence of randomization. Future studies should increase the number of participants (including left-handed fencers) and add other specific weapons (such as épée and saber), which would be beneficial. Future research with larger sample sizes and longer data collection periods could provide more solid insights into the effects observed in this study. Second, the results obtained in a controlled laboratory setting may not directly apply to field environments [] or actual competitions, as the procedures used here do not consider key factors in fencing, such as dynamic interaction with an opponent []. While this study focused on cognitive performance, which is crucial for executing fencing skills, a full understanding of how physical load influences cognitive expertise requires examining the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms. The present study included only male foil fencers aged 14–18. Future studies should expand the sample to include female athletes, athletes of different ages, and various levels of expertise. Because of differences in segment length and muscle mass, sex-related variations in execution speed could also be worth exploring. Since competitive fencing has been linked to cognitive fatigue, examining how it affects execution speed and accuracy could be valuable. Additionally, since the 12-week training program was tested with a small group, adding a control group would help provide clearer conclusions about its effect on cognitive performance, especially choice reaction. Results cannot establish causality. Observed changes may reflect learning or familiarization.
5. Conclusions
The present pilot study examined the effects of a 12-week reaction training program on physical and cognitive performance (choice reaction) in U20 Latvian fencers. While the group results showed no significant changes in the variables, some individual changes suggested that a 12-week training program may improve choice reaction time. Also, the current program’s low training load may explain the limited HR changes in some athletes. Given the critical age for developing choice reaction, a small sample size may limit the study, and these findings should be interpreted as preliminary and exploratory, providing initial insights into how training may influence cognitive performance in young fencers and illustrating that responses can vary across heart rate zones and among individuals. However, it is important to recognize that multiple factors, including age and stimulus type, influence individual differences in outcomes. These points emphasize the need for future research with highly controlled designs, including clear definitions of participant expertise, specific exercise protocols, and well-defined cognitive tasks.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, L.E.T., S.S., R.L., M.G. and B.B.; methodology, L.E.T., M.G. and B.B.; formal analysis and data curation, L.E.T., M.G. and B.B.; investigation, L.E.T. and B.B.; writing—review and editing, L.E.T., S.S., R.L., M.G. and B.B.; visualization, L.E.T. and B.B.; supervision, S.S., R.L. and B.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded within the framework of the European Union Recovery and Resilience Mechanism Plan and the state budget-funded project “RSU internal and RSU with LASE external consolidation” (No. 5.2.1.1.i.0/2/24/I/CFLA/005), implemented under a Doctoral Grant.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethical Committee of Riga Stradins University, Latvian Academy of Sport Education (protocol code no. 8/3/51813, and approval date 30 July 2023).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians.
Data Availability Statement
Data are available upon request to the correspondence author. An anonymized dataset/code will be open access (for reproducibility).
Acknowledgments
We are thankful to the athletes for participating in this study.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| RT | Reaction time |
| VTS | Vienna test system |
| CR | Choice reaction |
| RS | Reaction speed |
| MS | Motor speed |
| m | mean |
| SD | Standard deviation |
| %Change | Percentage change |
| ms | milliseconds |
| Sub | subject |
| Min | minimum |
| Max | maximum |
| HR | Heart rate |
| bpm | beats per minute |
| Z | Zone |
Appendix A
Table A1.
The 12-week training program description (2× a week), month 1.
Table A1.
The 12-week training program description (2× a week), month 1.
| No. | Instructions | Dosage |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Launch a tennis ball, let it bounce, and catch it with one hand while extending your arm (from the guard position) | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 2 | Throw a reaction ball and grab it with one hand after it hits the ground. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 3 | In the same exercise, catch the ball during the drill, then immediately perform a forward lunge. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 4 | Agility leather exercises: step forward, then move your right foot outside the square boundary. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 5 | Agility leather exercises: step ahead, then shift your left foot beyond the edge of the box. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 6 | Begin in a defensive stance, take two strides forward, and one step back. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 7 | Start from the guard position, walk to the first marker, then retreat to the next, repeat this relay-style movement. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 8 | Practice fencing footwork from a ready stance, changing direction whenever the coach claps. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 9 | Moving into the fighting stance, the individual responds to cones of various colors. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 10 | Jogging in place in a fencing stance and striking the fencing target on a coach’s command. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
Table A2.
The 12-week training program description (2× a week), month 2.
Table A2.
The 12-week training program description (2× a week), month 2.
| No. | Instructions | Dosage |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Throw the tennis ball up, catch it smoothly, and stretch your arm forward quickly. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 2 | Put two colored objects in front. When the coach says a color, touch the one that matches. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 3 | Two athletes stand apart 2 m and step forward to tap the object in front of them. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 4 | Each athlete has two colored items. When the coach gives the signal, they race to grab the right one (reaction play). | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 5 | Agility leather exercises: Jump into each box using only the right foot. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 6 | Agility leather exercises: jump onto each box using only the left leg. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 7 | From the guard position, when told, take two fast steps forward and wait for the next signal. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 8 | Move around freely. When signaled, lunge forward, go back to ready stance, take two quick steps back, and repeat | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 9 | Running in place in the fencing stance and catching the fencing glove with a lunge. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 10 | Jumping rope and catching the fencing gloves. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
Table A3.
The 12-week training program description (2× a week), month 3.
Table A3.
The 12-week training program description (2× a week), month 3.
| No. | Instructions | Dosage |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Place two colored posts in front. When the coach says a color, the athlete quickly taps that one using their strong hand. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 2 | Two athletes stand facing each other with a post between them. When the coach gives the signal, they race to grab it—whoever gets it first wins. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 3 | Exercise no. 2 is repeated, and the coach shouts different commands: hand on knee, hand on head, etc. When he shouts and puts his hand on the pole, the athletes must quickly grab the pole. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 4 | While jumping rope, reach out and catch the fencing glove during the movement. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 5 | Step forward and backward like in fencing. When signaled, sprint in place with high knees from the guard position. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 6 | Do jumping jacks, then catch the fencing glove when prompted. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 7 | Run back and forth between two points, and catch tennis balls during the drill (Shuttle running). | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 8 | Move freely. When the coach signals, take two fast steps back, then lunge forward with power. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 9 | Jump from a distant spot toward a closer one using agility leather. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
| 10 | Make two forward jumps with both feet, then jump backward once. | 2 × 1 min + rest 30 s |
References
- Chen, T.L.W.; Wong, D.W.C.; Wang, Y.; Ren, S.; Yan, F.; Zhang, M. Biomechanics of fencing sport: A scoping review. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torun, V.; Ince, G.; Durgun, B. The effects of basic fencing studies and velocity training on reaction time in the 9–12-year-old beginners of fencing. Sport Sci. 2012, 5, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
- Witkowski, M.; Bojkowski, Ł.; Karpowicz, K.; Konieczny, M.; Bronikowski, M.; Tomczak, M. Effectiveness and Durability of Transfer Training in Fencing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borysiuk, Z.; Markowska, N.; Konieczny, M.; Kręcisz, K.; Błaszczyszyn, M.; Nikolaidis, P.T.; Knechtle, B.; Pakosz, P. Flèche versus Lunge as the Optimal Footwork Technique in Fencing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutiérrez-Cruz, C.; Rojas, F.J.; Gutiérrez-Davila, M. Effect of defence response time during lunge in foil fencing. J. Sports Sci. 2015, 34, 651–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorel, A.; Plantard, P.; Bideau, N.; Pontonnier, C. Studying fencing lunge accuracy and response time in uncertain conditions with an innovative simulator. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0218959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chtara, H.; Negra, Y.; Chaabene, H.; Chtara, M.; Cronin, J.; Chaouachi, A. Validity and Reliability of a New Test of Change of Direction in Fencing Athletes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milic, M.; Nedeljkovic, A.; Cuk, I.; Mudric, M.; García-Ramos, A. Comparison of reaction time between beginners and experienced fencers during quasi-realistic fencing situations. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2020, 20, 896–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balkó, S.; Zbigniev, B.; Simonek, J. The influence of different performance levels of fencers on simple and choice reaction time. Rev. Bras. Cineantropometria Desempenho Hum. 2016, 18, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, A.R. Clocking the Mind: Mental Chronometry and Individual Differences, 1st ed.; Elsevier Science & Technology: Chantilly, VA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Maarseveen, M.J.J.; Savelsbergh, G.J.P.; Oudejans, R.R.D. In Situ Examination of Decision-Making Skills and Gaze Behaviour of Basketball Players. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2018, 57, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.L.; Lin, F.T.; Li, K.W.; Jou, Y.T.; Huang, C.D. A study of optimal handle shape and muscle strength distribution on the lower arm when holding a foil. Percept. Mot. Skills 2009, 108, 524–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Quel, Ó.M.; Bennett, S.J. Perceptual-Cognitive Expertise in Combat Sports: A Narrative Review and a Model of Perception-Action/Habilidades Perceptivo-Cognitivas En Deportes de Combate: Una Revisión Narrativa y Un Modelo de Percepción-Acción. RICYDE Rev. Int. Cienc. Deporte 2019, 15, 323–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagot, P.; Fournier, J.F.; Kerivel, T.; Bossard, C.; Kermarrec, G.; Martinent, G.; Bernier, M. Visual Search Strategies of Elite Fencers: An Exploratory Study in Ecological Competitive Situation. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llorens, F.; Sanabria, D.; Huertas, F. The influence of acute intense exercise on exogenous spatial attention depends on physical fitness level. Exp. Psychol. 2015, 62, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cereatti, L.; Casella, R.; Manganelli, M.; Pesce, C. Visual attention in adolescents: Facilitating effects of sport expertise and acute physical exercise. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2009, 10, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delignières, D.; Brisswalter, J.; Legros, P. Influence of physical exercise on choice reaction time in sports experts: The mediating role of resource allocation. J. Hum. Mov. Stud. 1994, 27, 173–188. [Google Scholar]
- Mouelhi Guizani, S.; Bouzaouach, I.; Tenenbaum, G.; Ben Kheder, A.; Feki, Y.; Bouaziz, M. Simple and choice reaction times under varying levels of physical load in high-skilled fencers. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 2006, 46, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Johne, M.; Poliszczuk, T.; Poliszczuk, D.; Dąbrowska-Perzyna, A. Asymmetry of Complex Reaction Time in Female Épée Fencers of Different Sports Classes. Pol. J. Sport Tour. 2013, 20, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Martino, G.; Giommoni, S.; Esposito, F.; Alessandro, D.; della Valle, C.; Iuliano, E.; Fiorilli, G.; Calcagno, G.; di Cagno, A. Enhancing Focus and Short Reaction Time in Épée Fencing: The Power of the Science Vision Training Academy System. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2024, 9, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magyar, P.; Faur, M.; Nita, V.; Dintica, G.; Oravitan, M. Developing the speed of fencers at the level of the lower and upper limbs through a combined program of non-specific and fencing-specific exercises. Ann. Appl. Sport Sci. 2023, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johne, M. The impact of fencing training symmetrisation on simple reaction time. Biomed. Hum. Kinet. 2021, 13, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roca, A.; Williams, A.M. Expertise and the Interaction Between Different Perceptual-Cognitive Skills: Implications for Testing and Training. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuhfried, G. Vienna Test System: Psychological Assessment; Schuhfried: Moedling, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Patócs, Á.; Melia, L.; Kovács, S.; Fózer-Selmeci, B.; Révész, L.; Tóth, L. Reactive Stress Tolerance and Personality Characteristics of Hungarian Elite Fencers. Cogn. Brain Behav. 2016, 20, 171–184. [Google Scholar]
- Nesen, O.; Klimenchenko, V. Indicators of speed and strength abilities of young fencers 12–13 years old. Pedagog. Health 2022, 1, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aydın, Ö.; Doğan, E.; Sevilmiş, E.; Sağlam, Ç.K. Examining the effects of attention and concentration levels on reaction time in fencing. Phys. Educ. Stud. 2024, 28, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balkó, S.; Rous, M.; Balkó, I.; Hnízdil, J.; Borysiuk, Z. Influence of a 9-week training intervention on the reaction time of fencers aged 15 to 18 years. Phys. Act. Rev. 2017, 5, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witkowski, M.; Tomczak, E.; Bojkowski, Ł.; Borysiuk, Z.; Tomczak, M. Do Expert Fencers Engage the Same Visual Perception Strategies as Beginners? J. Hum. Kinet. 2021, 78, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutiérrez-Davila, M.; Rojas, F.J.; Gutiérrez-Cruz, C.; Navarro, E. Effect of dual-attention task on attack and defensive actions in fencing. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2017, 17, 1004–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petronijević, S.; Petrović, A.; Ćopić, N.; Jovanović, S.; Gajić, I. The influence of maturation on the speed of the individual hand movements in fencing. Homo Sport. 2019, 21, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Johne, M. The influence of three-year symmetrical training on the precision and frequency of the fencers’ movement. Cent. Eur. J. Sport Sci. Med. 2023, 1, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torbeyns, T.; de Geus, B.; Bailey, S.; De Pauw, K.; Decroix, L.; Van Cutsem, J.; Meeusen, R. Cycling on a Bike Desk Positively Influences Cognitive Performance. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oates, L.W.; Campbell, I.G.; Iglesias, X.; Price, M.J.; Muniz-Pumares, D.; Bottoms, L.M. The physiological demands of elite épée fencers during competition. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2019, 19, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanaka, H.; Monahan, K.D.; Seals, D.R. Age-Predicted Maximal Heart Rate Revisited. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2001, 37, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turna, B. The Effect of Agility Training on Reaction Time in Fencers. J. Educ. Learn. 2020, 9, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sellés-Pérez, S.; Arévalo-Chico, H.; Fernández-Sáez, J.; Cejuela, R. Training Characteristics, Performance, and Body Composition of Three U23 Elite Female Triathletes throughout a Season. Sports 2024, 12, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McMorris, T.; Turner, A.; Hale, B.J.; Sproule, J. Beyond the catecholamines hypothesis for an acute exercise-cognition interaction: A neurochemical perspective. In Exercise-Cognition Interaction: Neuroscience Perspectives; McMorris, T., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 65–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMorris, T. Exercise and Cognitive Functions: A Neuroendocrinological Explanation. In Exercise and Cognitive Function; McMorris, T., Tomporowski, P.D., Audiffren, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 41–68. [Google Scholar]
- Zemková, E.; Miklovič, P.; Hamar, D. There is a relationship between intensity of exercise and reaction time on laterally concordant and discordant stimuli. Acta Kinesiol. 2009, 3, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
- Zemková, E. Effects of acute and chronic exercise on agility skills. Vidyabh. Int. Interdiscip. Res. J. 2021, 12, 500–504. [Google Scholar]
- Levitt, S.; Gutin, B. Multiple Choice Reaction Time and Movement Time During Physical Exertion. Res. Q. Am. Assoc. Health Phys. Educ. Recreat. 1971, 42, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mekari, S.; Fraser, S.; Bosquet, L.; Bonnéry, C.; Labelle, V.; Pouliot, P.; Lesage, F.; Bherer, L. The relationship between exercise intensity, cerebral oxygenation, and cognitive performance in young adults. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2015, 115, 2189–2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horváth, D.; Négyesi, J.; Győri, T.; Szűcs, B.; Tóth, P.J.; Matics, Z.; Ökrös, C.; Sáfár, S.; Szabó, N.; Takács, B.; et al. Application of a reactive agility training program using light-based stimuli to enhance the physical and cognitive performance of car racing drivers: A randomized controlled trial. Sports Med. Open 2022, 8, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davey, C. Physical exertion and mental performance. Ergonomics 1973, 16, 595–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pesce, C.; Cereatti, L.; Forte, R.; Crova, C.; Casella, R. Acute and chronic exercise effects on attentional control in older road cyclists. Gerontology 2011, 57, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boobani, B.; Grants, J.; Glaskova-Kuzmina, T.; Zidens, J.; Litwiniuk, A. Effect of green exercise on stress level, mental toughness, and performance of taekwondo athletes. Arch. Budo J. Innov. Agonol. 2024, 20, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
- Boobani, B.; Grants, J.; Litwiniuk, A.; Boge, I.; Glaskova-Kuzmina, T. Effect of Walking in Nature on Stress Levels and Performance of Taekwondo Athletes in the Competition Period. J. Kinesiol. Exerc. Sci. 2024, 34, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boobani, B.; Kalnina, Z.; Glaskova-Kuzmina, T.; Erina, L.; Liepina, I. Utilizing Facial Emotion Analysis with FaceReader to Evaluate the Effects of Outdoor Activities on Preschoolers’ Basic Emotions: A Pilot Study in e-Health. Int. J. Online Biomed. Eng. 2025, 21, 61–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Vegte, Y.J.; Tegegne, B.S.; Verweij, N.; Snieder, H.; van der Harst, P. Genetics and the heart rate response to exercise. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2019, 76, 2391–2409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yamamoto, K.; Miyachi, M.; Saitoh, T.; Yoshioka, A.; Onodera, S. Effects of endurance training on resting and post-exercise cardiac autonomic control. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2001, 33, 1496–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Navia, J.A.; Avilés, C.; López, S.; Ruiz, L.M. A current approach to anticipation in sport. Stud. Psicol. 2018, 38, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagemann, N.; Schorer, J.; Canal-Bruland, R.; Lotz, S.; Strauss, B. Visual perception in fencing: Do the eye movements of fencers represent their information pickup? Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2010, 72, 2204–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badau, D.; Baydil, B.; Badau, A. Differences among Three Measures of Reaction Time Based on Hand Laterality in Individual Sports. Sports 2018, 6, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varesco, G.; Sarcher, A.; Doron, J.; Jubeau, M. Striking a balance: Exploring attention, attack accuracy and speed in fencing performance. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2024, 24, 1278–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Posner, M.I.; Dehaene, S. Attentional Networks. Trends Neurosci. 1994, 17, 75–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sirotic, A.C.; Coutts, A.J. The reliability of physiological and performance measures during simulated team-sport running on a non-motorised treadmill. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2008, 11, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Voss, M.W.; Kramer, A.F.; Basak, C.; Prakash, R.S.; Roberts, B. Are Expert Athletes ‘Expert’ in the Cognitive Laboratory? A Meta-Analytic Review of Cognition and Sport Expertise. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2010, 24, 812–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).