Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (5)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = FITLIGHT Trainer

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
10 pages, 1466 KiB  
Article
Assessing Changes in Reaction Time Following RAMP Warm-Up and Short-Term Repeated Volleyball Specific Exercise in Young Players
by Kacper Cieśluk, Dorota Sadowska and Justyna Krzepota
Sensors 2025, 25(1), 125; https://doi.org/10.3390/s25010125 - 28 Dec 2024
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2567
Abstract
The assessment of the various skills of athletes is carried out in terms of their ability to perform sport-specific tasks. The cognitive abilities of the players have significance for their effectiveness. In volleyball, a player’s ability to react quickly appears to be crucial [...] Read more.
The assessment of the various skills of athletes is carried out in terms of their ability to perform sport-specific tasks. The cognitive abilities of the players have significance for their effectiveness. In volleyball, a player’s ability to react quickly appears to be crucial in responding to an opponent’s dynamic play. The aim of the study was to evaluate the changes in reaction time to light signals following warm-up and physical exercise. Eighteen volleyball players (15.58 ± 2.01 years) participated in the study. Four FITLIGHT TrainerTM discs were placed on the wall facing the participant to conduct the reaction time test. The participant’s task was to react as quickly as possible to the illuminated disc by touching it with the palm of their hand. The procedure was repeated five times: before the warm-up, after the warm-up, and after each of the three agility tests. Friedman’s ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in reaction time between the tests (Chi2 ANOVA = 61.23; p < 0.001). All tests performed after the warm-up according to the RAMP protocol showed statistically significantly better results than those before the warm-up (p ≤ 0.05). At the same time, no differences were observed between the tests performed after successive agility tests. The results indicated that a well-chosen warm-up plays an important role in shortening the time of visual-motor reaction to a light stimulus (RT). Subsequent studies should be expanded to include other research groups and assess other parameters. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensor Techniques and Methods for Sports Science)
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 1465 KiB  
Article
American Football Headgear Impairs Visuomotor Drill Performance in Division I NCAA Football Athletes
by Christopher G. Ballmann and Rebecca R. Rogers
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2024, 9(3), 169; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk9030169 - 18 Sep 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1290
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Previous evidence has shown that American football headgear (e.g., facemasks, visors/eye shields) differentially impairs reaction time (RT) to visual stimuli, most notably in peripheral fields of view. However, this has only been established with stationary RT testing, which may not translate to [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Previous evidence has shown that American football headgear (e.g., facemasks, visors/eye shields) differentially impairs reaction time (RT) to visual stimuli, most notably in peripheral fields of view. However, this has only been established with stationary RT testing, which may not translate to gameplay situations that require gross motor skills. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to build upon previous findings to elucidate the effects of various American football headgear on gross motor visuomotor drill performance. Methods: Division 1 NCAA football players (n = 16) with normal/corrected-to-normal vision participated and completed two experiments (EXP), each with differing conditions: EXP1- Varying facemask reinforcement and EXP2- Varying visor/eye shield light transmittance. In EXP1, participants completed an agility test for the following conditions: baseline/no helmet (BL), helmet + light (HL), helmet + medium (HM), and helmet + heavy (HH) face mask reinforcement. In EXP2, participants completed an agility test for the following conditions: baseline/no helmet (BL), helmet + clear visor (HCV), helmet + smoke-tinted visor (HSV), and helmet + mirrored visor (HMV). For each condition in EXP1 and EXP2, participants completed a reactive agility task using a FITLIGHT trainer system where five poles were equipped with a total of ten LED sensors and were placed in a semi-circle 1 m around a center point. Participants were asked to step and reach with their hands to hit each ten lights individually as fast as possible upon illumination. Each reactive agility test was repeated for a total of three attempts. Results: Average reaction time was analyzed and compared between conditions and according to visual fields of interest (e.g., central vs. peripheral). Results from EXP1 showed that compared to BL, reactive agility was worsened by HL (p = 0.030), HM (p = 0.034), and HH (p = 0.003) conditions. No differences between facemask conditions existed for overall performance (p > 0.05). For EXP2, HCV (p < 0.001), HSV (p < 0.001), and HMV (p < 0.001) conditions resulted in worsened reactive agility performance compared to BL. No differences between visor conditions existed for overall performance (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Overall, these findings suggest that American football headgear impairs reactive agility, which could result in worsened game performance and safety. Future studies investigating training strategies to overcome impairments are warranted. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Physiology of Training)
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 2039 KiB  
Article
The Use of Modern Measuring Devices in the Evaluation of Movement in the Block in Volleyball Depending on the Difficulty of the Task Determined by Light Signals
by Kacper Cieśluk, Dorota Sadowska and Justyna Krzepota
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(20), 11462; https://doi.org/10.3390/app132011462 - 19 Oct 2023
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 1931
Abstract
The basic technical element that is a direct response to the opponent’s attack is the block. Blocking is related to setting the starting position of the player and choosing the most effective way to move. The aim of this study was to evaluate [...] Read more.
The basic technical element that is a direct response to the opponent’s attack is the block. Blocking is related to setting the starting position of the player and choosing the most effective way to move. The aim of this study was to evaluate the time of movement in the block depending on the difficulty of the task determined by a response to light signals. The study included 14 players (17.36 ± 1.18 years). Eight discs of the FITLIGHT TrainerTM device placed at different heights near the center of the volleyball court were used for the measurements. The player’s task was to move as quickly as possible in a block after recognizing a light signal to take a specific action. Three types of tasks with different levels of difficulty were defined: reaction to the light signal on the player’s side (S1), reaction to the light signal of the upper or lower discs placed vertically over the net (S2), and reaction to the color of the light signal of the upper or lower discs placed vertically over the net (S3). The following time measurements were analyzed: indirect time (TI), time of movement to the jumping point (TJP), and total time (TT) on the right and left sides. In all measurements (TI, TJP, TT), the differences in the times obtained in tasks S1 and S2 and tasks S1 and S3 were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.001) for both the right and left sides. The comparison of the task performance times for S2 and S3 showed a difference only in the TJP measurement for the left side. An analysis of the results indicates a significant role of signal recognition and decision-making process in the player’s movement during blocking. The FITLIGHT TrainerTM device can be a useful tool for this purpose in coaching. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Sports Performance Analysis and Applied Technologies)
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 2610 KiB  
Article
Timing in Lower Limb Complex Movement Tests for DanceSport Athletes: Relation between FitLight Trainer and IMU Measurements
by Marija Prelević, Milivoj Dopsaj and Sara Stančin
Sensors 2023, 23(3), 1456; https://doi.org/10.3390/s23031456 - 28 Jan 2023
Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2931
Abstract
We examine the relation between two devices used in measuring the timing in lower limb complex movement tests for DanceSport athletes, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a FitLight Trainer device, with the latter regarded as the gold standard method in the field. [...] Read more.
We examine the relation between two devices used in measuring the timing in lower limb complex movement tests for DanceSport athletes, an inertial measurement unit (IMU) and a FitLight Trainer device, with the latter regarded as the gold standard method in the field. Four tests are selected to cover the lower limb movements. The research sample comprises 21 experienced dancers from different dance disciplines, performing the four tests with each of their lower limbs. Compared using concurrent validity, the two devices used show great agreement for estimating the total tests’ run times, with interclass correlation coefficients between 0.967 and 0.994 for all tests. This agreement is additionally confirmed by Bland–Altman plots. As an alternative to other devices, the IMU sensor has proven to be a precise and suitable device for measuring timing and testing in sports. Its mobility, light weight, and size are advantages of this device in addition to measurement accuracy. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 694 KiB  
Article
The Effects of a Visual Stimuli Training Program on Reaction Time, Cognitive Function, and Fitness in Young Soccer Players
by Georgia Theofilou, Ioannis Ladakis, Charikleia Mavroidi, Vasileios Kilintzis, Theodoros Mirachtsis, Ioanna Chouvarda and Evangelia Kouidi
Sensors 2022, 22(17), 6680; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22176680 - 3 Sep 2022
Cited by 33 | Viewed by 11008
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine whether a visual stimuli program during soccer training can affect reaction time (RT), cognitive function, and physical fitness in adolescent soccer players. Thirty-eight male soccer players aged 10–15 were randomly assigned to either the [...] Read more.
The purpose of the present study was to examine whether a visual stimuli program during soccer training can affect reaction time (RT), cognitive function, and physical fitness in adolescent soccer players. Thirty-eight male soccer players aged 10–15 were randomly assigned to either the intervention (Group A) or the control group (Group B). At baseline and at the end of the 6-month study FITLIGHT Trainer, the Cognitive Function Scanner Mobile Test Suite, a Virtual Reality (VR) game, and the ALPHA—Fitness and the Eurofit test batteries were used to measure participants’ abilities. After the baseline assessment, Group A followed their regular soccer training combined with a visual stimuli program, while Group B continued their regular soccer training program alone for 6 months. At the end of the 6-month study, Group A showed statistically significant improvements in simple RT by 11.8% (p = 0.002), repeated sprints by 13.4% (p ≤ 0.001), and Pen-to-Point Cognitive Function by 71.62% (p < 0.001) and 72.51% for dominant and non-dominant hands, respectively. However, a between-groups analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in most of the measurements studied. In conclusion, a visual stimuli training program does not seem to add any value to the traditional soccer training program for adolescents. Nevertheless, this study helps to underline the potential of newly emerging technology as a tool for the assessment of RT. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop