Abstract
Background: Visualization (motor imagery) is used in sports to enhance performance. Fencing relies on point control and lunge distance, yet little is known about how visualization affects these skills across experience levels. Objective: To examine the effects of brief visualization on point control and lunge distance in fencers of different experience levels. Methods: Nineteen fencers (age 10–56) completed pre- and post-tests of point control (10 hits) and lunge distance (maximum reach). Between tests, the experimental group performed a 1 min guided visualization, while the control group (n = 20) repeated the tests without visualization. Results: Visualization significantly improved point control (+1.3 hits, 25.5%; p = 0.002). Lunge distance increased (+15.6 cm, 11.1%; p = 0.001). Less experienced fencers improved more in point control (39.0% vs. 14.8%), while experienced fencers improved more in lunge distance (12.8% vs. 7.2%). Control participants showed no meaningful gains, and between-group comparisons confirmed significant advantages for visualization in both skills (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Even a short visualization exercise improved fencing performance, with novices benefiting most in accuracy and experienced fencers in explosive reach. Visualization offers a low-cost, adaptable supplement to fencing training.
1. Introduction
Visualization, or mental imagery, is a well-established technique in sports psychology that involves rehearsing movements mentally without physical execution. Research has shown that imagery can enhance accuracy, strength, reaction time, confidence, and overall performance by engaging neural pathways similar to those activated during actual movement [1,2]. Importantly, these benefits extend beyond elite athletes; novices also gain from mental imagery, which can accelerate skill acquisition and support motor learning [3,4]. Bibliometric analyses confirm the growing importance of psychological skills training, including visualization, within sports and exercise medicine [5]. Moreover, visualization is increasingly recognized as a core element of psychological skills training across athletic disciplines [6,7,8].
Despite broad application across sports, fencing remains underexplored in this context. Fencing demands a combination of precision and explosiveness, requiring fine control of the weapon tip and rapid execution of dynamic movements, such as the lunge. Both point control and lunge distance are central to successful performance, yet few studies have directly examined whether visualization can improve these fundamental skills in fencers. This is a notable gap, as fencing provides a unique model to study visualization’s effects on both fine motor accuracy and gross motor coordination [9].
The present study addresses this gap by testing the impact of a brief visualization exercise on point control and lunge distance in fencers. Additionally, it evaluates whether athletes with varying levels of experience respond differently to imagery. By combining controlled testing with subgroup comparisons, this study aims to clarify the role of visualization in fencing performance and provide practical insights for tailoring mental training across stages of athlete development.
2. Materials and Methods
The experiment consisted of two testing phases—pre-test and post-test—separated by a visualization exercise. Both phases included evaluation of point control and lunge distance. For a more detailed description of point control and lunge distance test set up and visualization procedures, refer to Appendix A.
2.1. Participants
Nineteen fencers aged 10 to 56 years participated in the experimental group. Participants were recruited from local fencing clubs and represented a diverse range of skill levels and years of training experience. All received a standardized explanation of the study procedures before testing [10,11]. A separate control group (n = 20) completed the same pre- and post-tests under identical conditions but did not perform the visualization exercise. This distinguished natural improvements during a retest versus visualization-specific effects.
2.2. Grouping
Participants were divided into two categories for subgroup analyses based on training history: less experienced fencers with <4 years of formal fencing training and more experienced fencers with ≥4 years of formal fencing training. This classification allowed investigation of whether visualization effects differed by training experience.
2.3. Pre-Test Procedures
Pre-Test procedures include point control test, lunge distance test and visualization exercise.
2.4. Point Control Test
Before the test, fencers were given one minute of practice to strike a target mounted on a wall. Four predetermined target locations were selected, each progressively increasing in difficulty [12,13]. During testing, participants attempted 10 hits on their designated target. The number of successful hits was recorded, and video recordings were used to verify accuracy. To avoid ceiling or floor effects, target difficulty was adjusted for subsequent attempts if necessary [10,14].
2.5. Lunge Distance Test
Participants began in the standard en garde position and executed a forward lunge as far as possible while maintaining balance and correct fencing form. The distance from the initial front foot position to the landing position was measured in centimeters. Each fencer performed three lunges, and the maximum distance was recorded for analysis [15].
2.6. Visualization Exercise
Following the pre-tests, participants in the experimental group engaged in a guided visualization session lasting approximately one minute in a quiet environment. They were instructed to close their eyes and mentally rehearse both tasks: point control and lunge imagery. In the point control imagery, fencers were asked to imagine extending the arm, aligning the blade, and striking the center of the target with precision. In the lunge imagery, fencers were asked to imagine pushing explosively off the back leg, extending the front leg forward, and maintaining balance through the landing position.
Participants were encouraged to use a first-person perspective, as this vantage point has been shown to provide behavioral advantages for motor learning [16]. Both kinesthetic (bodily sensations, muscle activation) and visual (seeing oneself perform successfully) imagery were emphasized. The exercise was standardized and led by the same instructor to ensure consistency.
2.7. Post-Test Procedures
Immediately after the visualization exercise, participants in the experimental group repeated the point control test and lunge distance test under identical conditions. Control group participants also repeated the tests, but without any visualization between sessions. This design allowed for direct within-group comparisons (pre vs. post) and between-group comparisons (experimental vs. control) [17,18].
2.8. Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Pre- and post-test results for point control and lunge distance were compared within each group using appropriate statistical tests (see Appendix B for details). Differences between the experimental and control groups were evaluated using independent-sample t-tests. Subgroup analyses compared less experienced (<4 years) and more experienced (≥4 years) fencers using the same approach. Results are reported as means ± standard deviations, with percentage change calculated for each measure. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. All analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel 365 and verified with SPSS v29 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Demographics
Nineteen fencers from the LEO Fencing Club participated in the study, ranging from age 10 to 56 years. Years of fencing varied from none to 22 years of competitive practice. Of the participants, 78.9% were men and 21.1% were women. According to USA Fencing Age Classification [19], the distribution was: Y10 (5.3%), Y12 (10.5%), Y14 (15.8%), Cadet (26.3%), Junior (10.5%), Senior (15.8%), and Vet-50 (15.8%) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Distribution of age, years of fencing experiences, gender and USA fencing age classification among control and test groups. The fencing age classification is based on the rules determined by the USA Fencing [19].
3.2. Overall Effects of Visualization
Across all participants, visualization training improved performance in both tasks.
Point Control: The average number of successful hits increased from 5.3 (pre-test) to 6.6 (post-test), representing an improvement of 1.3 hits (25.5%). This effect was statistically significant (p = 0.002) (Figure 1; Table 2; Appendix B). Prior research has emphasized the importance of attentional focus and tip accuracy in fencing performance [10,13].
Figure 1.
Average successful hits among 19 fencers. The left bar represents the results from pre-visualization, while the right bar represents the results from post-visualization. Red lines represent the median values. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test t-test (p-value: 0.002). The black lines represent maximum and minimum non-outlier values in the data set. Outliers are represented by black circles.
Table 2.
Results of point control and lunge distance tests before and after visualization. The calculated averages are shown at the bottom. The difference is the post-data minus pre-data. The definition of the “%” in the table is the percent improvement between “pre” and “post”.
Lunge Distance: The mean distance increased from 133.7 cm to 147.9 cm, corresponding to an improvement of 14.2 cm (11.1%). Strong significant improvement after visualization was observed (p = 0.001; Figure 2; Table 2; Appendix B). Previous biomechanical studies suggest that improvements in lunge distance reflect coordination and lower-limb power [15].
Figure 2.
Average distance among 19 fencers. The left bar represents the results from pre-visualization, while the right bar represents the results from post-visualization. Error bars are the standard deviation. Red lines represent the median values. The black lines represent maximum and minimum non-outlier values in the data set. Error bars are the standard deviation. Paired t-test (p-value: 0.001). Outliers are represented by black circles.
3.3. Effects of Training Experience
When fencers were divided by training history, additional patterns emerged.
- Point Control: Fencers with <4 years of experience showed greater improvement, increasing from 5.1 to 7.1 hits (39.0%) (Table 3, Figure 3a). Those with ≥4 years of experience improved from 5.5 to 6.2 hits (14.8%) (Table 4, Figure 4a). These differences are consistent with evidence that novices benefit most from visualization in skill acquisition [3,4].
Figure 3. (a) Point Control Analysis in Fencers with Less than Four Years of Training. (b) Lunge Distance Analysis in Fencers with Less than Four Years of Training.
Figure 4. (a) Point Control Analysis in Fencers with More than Four Years of Training. (b) Lunge Distance Analysis in Fencers with More than Four Years of Training. - Lunge Distance: Fencers with <4 years of experience improved by 8.9 cm (7.2%) (Table 5, Figure 3b). Fencers with ≥4 years of experience, improved by 18.1 cm (12.8%) (Table 6, Figure 4b). This aligns with previous findings that experienced fencers use imagery to refine explosive actions, such as lunges [20].
Table 3.
Point Control Data for Fencers with Less than Four Years of Training.
Table 3.
Point Control Data for Fencers with Less than Four Years of Training.
| Fencer ID | Pre | Post | Difference | Percent Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fencer H | 4 | 5 | 1 | 25.00% |
| Fencer M | 4 | 5 | 1 | 25.00% |
| Fencer L | 6 | 5 | −1 | −16.67% |
| Fencer D | 5 | 7 | 2 | 40.00% |
| Fencer O | 5 | 7 | 2 | 40.00% |
| Fencer B | 7 | 9 | 2 | 28.57% |
| Fencer K | 5 | 9 | 4 | 80.00% |
| Fencer A | 5 | 10 | 5 | 100.00% |
| Average | 5.1 | 7.1 | 2.0 | 39.0% |
Table 4.
Point Control Data for Fencers with More than Four Years of Training.
Table 4.
Point Control Data for Fencers with More than Four Years of Training.
| Fencer ID | Pre | Post | Difference | Percent Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fencer P | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Fencer F | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Fencer N | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Fencer S | 5 | 6 | 1 | 20.00% |
| Fencer C | 5 | 6 | 1 | 20.00% |
| Fencer E | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Fencer G | 4 | 7 | 3 | 75.00% |
| Fencer R | 6 | 7 | 1 | 16.67% |
| Fencer I | 6 | 7 | 1 | 16.67% |
| Fencer J | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0.00% |
| Fencer Q | 7 | 8 | 1 | 14.29% |
| Average | 5.5 | 6.2 | 0.7 | 14.8% |
Table 5.
Lunge Distance Data for Fencers with Less than Four Years of Training.
Table 5.
Lunge Distance Data for Fencers with Less than Four Years of Training.
| Fencer ID | Pre | Post | Difference | Percent Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fencer A | 98 | 109 | 11 | 11.22% |
| Fencer H | 95 | 111 | 16 | 16.84% |
| Fencer K | 118 | 124 | 6 | 5.08% |
| Fencer M | 126 | 128 | 2 | 1.59% |
| Fencer B | 122 | 134 | 12 | 9.84% |
| Fencer L | 127 | 145 | 18 | 14.17% |
| Fencer D | 146 | 153 | 7 | 4.79% |
| Fencer O | 156 | 155 | −1 | −0.64% |
| Average | 123.5 | 132.4 | 8.9 | 7.2% |
Table 6.
Lunge Distance Data for Fencers with More than Four Years of Training.
Table 6.
Lunge Distance Data for Fencers with More than Four Years of Training.
| Fencer ID | Pre | Post | Difference | Percent Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fencer N | 112 | 126 | 14 | 12.50% |
| Fencer I | 123 | 134 | 11 | 8.94% |
| Fencer S | 127 | 137 | 10 | 7.87% |
| Fencer C | 123 | 143 | 20 | 16.26% |
| Fencer G | 132 | 149 | 17 | 12.88% |
| Fencer P | 146 | 150 | 4 | 2.74% |
| Fencer R | 144 | 156 | 12 | 8.33% |
| Fencer Q | 163 | 173 | 10 | 6.13% |
| Fencer F | 177 | 186 | 9 | 5.08% |
| Fencer E | 175 | 194 | 19 | 10.86% |
| Fencer J | 131 | 204 | 73 | 55.73% |
| Average | 141.2 | 159.3 | 18.1 | 12.8% |
3.4. Control Group
The control group performed the same pre- and post-tests without visualization training. Results showed minimal or negative changes:
- Point Control: Average scores declined slightly from 6.1 to 5.75 hits (−0.35 hits; −6.6%) (Table 7).
Table 7. Results of point control and lunge distance tests in the control group. The calculated averages are shown at the bottom. The difference is the post data minus pre data. The definition of the “%” in the table is the percent improvement between “pre” and “post”.
- Lunge Distance: Distances increased only marginally, from 123.4 cm to 126.7 cm (+3.31 cm; 2.76%) (Table 7).
3.5. Between Group Comparisons
Comparisons between the visualization and control groups showed significant differences (Figure 5).
Figure 5.
The Test group shows a much higher average improvement in both metrics: point control and lunge distance. The red lines in the box plots represent the median; The black lines represent maximum and minimum non-outlier values in the data set; Blue Xs represent the mean, and gray boxes represent the interquartile range (IQR). (a) The percentage improvement between the Control Group and Test Group in the Point Control test. The Control group has wide variability and several negative performances in Point Control. Mann–Whitney U test (p-value: 0.0057). (b) Average percentage improvement between the Control Group and Test Group in the Lunge Distance test. Welch t-test (p-value: 0.0072). The black circles represent the statistical outliers in the graph.
- Point Control: The visualization group showed significantly greater improvement than the control group (Mann–Whitney U test, p = 0.0057). This confirms that visualization training, rather than test repetition, accounted for the gains [9,21].
- Lunge Distance: Improvements in the visualization group were also significantly greater than those in the control group (Welch t-test, p = 0.0072).
4. Discussion
This study investigated whether a brief visualization exercise could enhance two key fencing skills—point control and lunge distance—and whether these effects varied by level of training experience. The findings indicate that visualization enhances fencing performance, but the nature of these benefits depends on both the fencer’s level of expertise and the type of technical skill.
4.1. Visualization and Point Control
Visualization significantly improved point control, with fencers increasing their average number of successful strikes by 25.5%. This effect was most pronounced in less experienced athletes (<4 years), who improved by 39.0% compared to only 14.8% in more experienced athletes. These results support the idea that novices, who are still forming stable motor representations unique to sport, gain more from mental rehearsal of fine motor skills. Imagery strengthens neural pathways associated with precision movements, enabling athletes to consolidate technical accuracy even without physical practice [3,4,22].
4.2. Visualization and Lunge Distance
Unlike point control, improvements in lunge distance were greater among more experienced fencers. While novices showed modest gains (7.2%), experienced fencers improved their reach by an average of 12.8%. These findings align with prior research suggesting that athletes with well-established motor schemas can utilize imagery to refine explosive movements by enhancing proprioceptive awareness, muscular coordination, and timing [5,20].
4.3. Comparison with Control Group
The inclusion of a control group confirmed that the observed benefits were not due to natural improvements from repeated testing. Control participants showed no meaningful gains in point control and only minimal improvement in lunge distance, in contrast to the significant improvements in the visualization group. The mean number of successful baseline hits prior to visualization was 5.3 ± 1.03 for the test group and 6.1 ± 2.0 for the control group. Likewise, the mean baseline lunge distance was 133.7 ± 22.2 cm in the test group and 123.4 ± 21.6 cm in the control group. Based on these mean values and associated standard deviations, no statistically significant differences were observed between groups at baseline, indicating that the test and control groups were comparable before the intervention. This confirms the conclusion that visualization was the key factor in driving performance gains. Similar patterns have been observed in other sports, where even brief imagery interventions led to measurable improvements in skill performance [9,21].
4.4. Practical Applications
These findings highlight the value of tailoring visualization exercises to the athlete’s developmental stage. For novices, emphasizing imagery of precise blade control may accelerate the acquisition of technical skills. For experienced athletes, focusing on explosive and dynamic actions such as the lunge may refine already well-developed motor patterns. Importantly, visualization requires no equipment and is time-efficient, making it an accessible tool for daily training sessions.
4.5. Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations should be acknowledged. The sample size was modest despite the fact that both point control and lunge distance improvements reached statistical significance. Visualization sessions were standardized and brief, which may not fully account for individual differences in imagery ability. Previous research has shown that interference during imagery can influence outcomes, highlighting the importance of considering imagery quality and cognitive load [23]. Furthermore, as with all small-sample experimental designs, results must be interpreted cautiously in light of potential biases and analytic challenges [24]. Future research should explore longer-term interventions, personalized imagery scripts, and interactions with psychological variables such as confidence and attentional control. Neuroimaging studies could further clarify the neural mechanisms of visualization in fencing, building on past research that demonstrates sport-specific brain adaptations [11,14,25].
5. Conclusions
Overall, this study provides evidence that even short visualization exercises can improve fencing performance [26,27]. The specific benefits vary with training experience—point control gains being most prominent in novices and lunge distance gains in experienced athletes. By integrating targeted visualization into practice routines, coaches may be able to accelerate skill acquisition, optimize performance, and complement traditional physical training methods.
Author Contributions
T.T.S.’s contributions include conceptualization, methodology development, experiment design and data collection, data analysis, and the manuscript drafting. A.L.’s contributions include assisting with data collection, manuscript figure preparation, and manuscript drafting. K.L. conceived and supervised the study, guided data analysis, and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study involved non-invasive testing of fencing skills in voluntary participants. No personal identifying information was collected, and all data were anonymized for analysis. As the study did not involve medical intervention, biological sampling, or sensitive personal information, formal institutional review board (IRB) approval was not required under prevailing guidelines.
Informed Consent Statement
All participants, or their legal guardians in the case of minors, provided informed consent before taking part.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Due to privacy considerations, individual fencer identifiers have been anonymized.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge LEO Fencing Club USA and Rogue Fencing Academy providing access to fencing facilities and equipment used in this study. We also thank the Brain Peace Science Foundation (BPSF) for the institutional support. All authors (Troy Song, Adam Liu, and Kun Liu) are affiliated with BPSF. Their roles in study design, data collection, analysis, and manuscript preparation were conducted as part of their research activities within BPSF.
Conflicts of Interest
All authors are affiliated with the Brain Peace Science Foundation (BPSF), which also provided funding for this study. The authors affirm that this dual role of BPSF as funder and institutional home does not constitute a conflict of interest. No commercial or financial relationships influenced the study outcomes.
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Point Control
- 1.
- Determination of Individual Lunge DistanceEach participant assumed an en garde stance in front of a wall-mounted target (Microfiber Self-Training Fencing Target with Five Bullseyes, LEONARK). Participants established their individualized lunge distance, defined as the maximal distance from which they could contact the target comfortably while maintaining balance and avoiding overextension of either leg. The rear-foot position corresponding to this distance was marked with a cone for consistent foot placement across trials.
- 2.
- FamiliarizationParticipants were allotted one minute to practice striking the wall-mounted target. The target consisted of four concentric circles with radii decreasing in one-centimeter increments.
- 3.
- Target SelectionBased on their prior fencing experience, participants selected one of the circles as their target zone for subsequent trials.
- 4.
- Baseline Trial
- Participants completed ten attempts of the practiced action. A successful attempt was defined as a strike in which the blade tip landed on or within the circumference of the selected circle. Each attempt began with the rear foot aligned to the cone marking the predetermined lunge distance. Participants maintained their position briefly after each strike, and attempts were recorded using an iPhone camera for later verification. If the blade tip initially contacted the target zone but subsequently deflected to another area, the initial point of contact was used for scoring.
- If the number of successful attempts fell below 4 or exceeded 7 out of 10, the target difficulty was adjusted accordingly to achieve an average success range of 4–7. Adjustments were discontinued if the participant was already using the easiest or the hardest target.
- 5.
- Intervention Phase
- Test Group: Participants completed a one-minute guided visualization exercise. They placed their epee aside, closed their eyes, and vividly imagined performing the task with flawless execution. Participants were instructed to incorporate multisensory details, such as the feel of the blade in the hand, and to mentally break down the movement sequence (arm extension, blade alignment, and accurate target contact). Visualization was performed from a first-person perspective.
- Control Group: Participants completed a two-minute non-fencing-related break. They put away their epee and jogged up and down the fencing strip for two minutes.
- 6.
- Post-Intervention TrialThe baseline procedures described in Step 4 were repeated exactly, regardless of group assignment.
Appendix A.2. Lunge Distance Task
- 1.
- Warm-UpParticipants were given one minute to stretch in preparation for the task.
- 2.
- Starting Position AlignmentThe participant’s front toe was aligned with the en garde line on the fencing strip. This initial toe position was marked with a cone.
- 3.
- Distance CalibrationA measuring tape was aligned such that the 0 cm mark corresponded to the cone marking the initial foot position.
- 4.
- Baseline Trial
- From a standard en garde stance, participants executed a maximal forward lunge while maintaining balance and appropriate fencing technique. Each participant completed three attempts. The distance traveled—from the initial front-foot position to the landing position—was measured in centimeters.
- The farthest of the three attempts was recorded as the participant’s baseline lunge distance.
- 5.
- Intervention Phase
- Test Group: Participants engaged in one minute of focused visualization. They were instructed to mentally rehearse performing the lunge with maximal explosiveness, emphasizing pushing off the back leg, extending the front leg, and maintaining balance during landing. To enhance imagery vividness, participants were encouraged to use metaphors (e.g., being propelled from a cannon or possessing unlimited flexibility). Visualization was performed from a first-person perspective.
- Control Group: Participants completed a two-minute non-fencing-related break, during which they jogged along the fencing strip.
- 6.
- Post-Intervention TrialThe baseline procedures described in Step 4 were repeated with identical preparation and execution for both groups.
Appendix B
Q-Q Plots of Analysis and Results of Statistical Tests
Pre-Hits or Post-Hits: point control test before or after visualization in the control or test group; Pre-Distance or Post-Distance: lunge distance test before or after visualization in the control or test group.
| Measure | Group Comparison | Statistical Test | Test Statistic | p -Value |
| Successful Hits (Pre vs. Post) | Control | Wilcoxon Signed-Rank | W = 43.50 | p = 0.341 |
| Successful Hits (Pre vs. Post) | Test | Wilcoxon Signed-Rank | W = 4.50 | p = 0.002 |
| Lunge Distance (Pre vs. Post) | Control | Paired t-test | t = −3.60 | p = 0.0019 |
| Lunge Distance (Pre vs. Post) | Test | Paired t-test | t = −4.04 | p = 0.00077 |
| Improvement in Hits (ΔHits) | Control vs. Test | Mann–Whitney U | U = 93.0 | p = 0.0057 |
| Improvement in Lunge Distance (ΔDistance) | Control vs. Test | Welch t-test | t = −2.98 | p = 0.0072 |
References
- Guillot, A.; Moschberger, K.; Collet, C. Coupling Movement with Imagery as a New Perspective for Motor Imagery Practice. Behav. Brain Funct. 2013, 9, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macintyre, T.E.; Moran, A.P.; Collet, C.; Guillot, A. An Emerging Paradigm: A Strength-Based Approach to Exploring Mental Imagery. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013, 7, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maring, J.R. Effects of Mental Practice on Rate of Skill Acquisition. Phys. Ther. 1990, 70, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feltz, D.; Landers, D. The Effects of Mental Practice on Motor Skill Learning and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. J. Sport. 2007, 5, 25–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khatra, O.; Shadgan, A.; Taunton, J.; Pakravan, A.; Shadgan, B. A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top Cited Articles in Sports and Exercise Medicine. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2021, 9, 2325967120969902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, I.; Jeon, J. Psychological Skills Training for Athletes in Sports: Web of Science Bibliometric Analysis. Healthcare 2023, 11, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milley, K.R.; Ouellette, G.P. Putting Attention on the Spot in Coaching: Shifting to an External Focus of Attention with Imagery Techniques to Improve Basketball Free-Throw Shooting Performance. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 645676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prasomsri, J.; Thueman, B.; Yuenyong, P.; Thongnoon, C.; Khophongphaibun, N.; Ariyawatcharin, S. Effectiveness of Motor Imagery on Sports Performance in Football Players: A Randomised Control Trial. Hong. Kong Physiother. J. 2024, 44, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hall, C.R.; Mack, D.; Paivio, A.; Hausenblas, H. Imagery Use by Athletes: Development of the Sport Imagery Questionnaire. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 1998, 29, 73–89. [Google Scholar]
- Hijazi, M.M.K. Attention, Visual Perception and Their Relationship to Sport Performance in Fencing. J. Hum. Kinet. 2013, 39, 195–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cordani, C.; Preziosa, P.; Gatti, R.; Castellani, C.; Filippi, M.; Rocca, M.A. Mapping Brain Structure and Function in Professional Fencers: A Model to Study Training Effects on Central Nervous System Plasticity. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2022, 43, 3375–3385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Williams, L.R.; Walmsley, A. Response Amendment in Fencing: Differences between Elite and Novice Subjects. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2000, 91, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feng, Y.; Zhou, C.-L.; Zhang, J.-C.; Tian, M.-L. Neural Mechanisms of Intuitive Tactical Decision-Making Predominance of High-Level Fencing Athletes. J. Med. Biol. Eng. 2010, 30, 47–56. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, A.N.; Marshall, G.; Phillips, J.; Noto, A.; Buttigieg, C.; Chavda, S.; Downing, W.; Atlay, N.; Dimitriou, L.; Kilduff, L. Physical Characteristics Underpinning Repetitive Lunging in Fencing. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 3134–3139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Watanabe, R.; Higuchi, T. Behavioral Advantages of the First-Person Perspective Model for Imitation. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulder, T. Motor Imagery and Action Observation: Cognitive Tools for Rehabilitation. J. Neural. Transm. 2007, 114, 1265–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pearson, D.G.; Deeprose, C.; Wallace-Hadrill, S.M.A.; Burnett Heyes, S.; Holmes, E.A. Assessing Mental Imagery in Clinical Psychology: A Review of Imagery Measures and a Guiding Framework. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2013, 33, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- USA Fencing. USA Fencing Age and Rating Eligibility; 2025-26; USA Fencing: Colorado Springs, CO, USA, 2025. [Google Scholar]
- Schack, T.; Essig, K.; Frank, C.; Koester, D. Mental Representation and Motor Imagery Training. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Corrado, D.; Guarnera, M.; Guerrera, C.S.; Maldonato, N.M.; Di Nuovo, S.; Castellano, S.; Coco, M. Mental Imagery Skills in Competitive Young Athletes and Non-Athletes. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jose, J.; Joseph, M. Imagery: It’s Effects and Benefits on Sports Performance and Psychological Variables: A Review Study. Int. J. Physiol. Nutr. Phys. Educ. 2018, 3, 190–193. [Google Scholar]
- Quinn, J.G.; McConnell, J. The Interval for Interference in Conscious Visual Imagery. Memory 2006, 14, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, A.W.; Kaiser, K.A.; Allison, D.B. Issues with Data and Analyses: Errors, Underlying Themes, and Potential Solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 2563–2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frank, C.; Land, W.M.; Schack, T. Perceptual-Cognitive Changes During Motor Learning: The Influence of Mental and Physical Practice on Mental Representation, Gaze Behavior, and Performance of a Complex Action. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rhodes, J.; Nedza, K.; May, J.; Clements, L. Imagery Training for Athletes with Low Imagery Abilities. J. Appl. Sport. Psychol. 2024, 36, 831–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruffino, C.; Truong, C.; Dupont, W.; Bouguila, F.; Michel, C.; Lebon, F.; Papaxanthis, C. Acquisition and Consolidation Processes Following Motor Imagery Practice. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2295. [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/).