The effect of a sequential structure of practice for the training of perceptual-cognitive skills in tennis

Abstract

Objective: Anticipation of opponent actions, through the use of advanced (i.e., pre-event) kinematic information, can be trained using video-based temporal occlusion. Typically, this involves isolated opponent skills/shots presented as trials in a random order. However, two different areas of research concerning representative task design and contextual (non-kinematic) information, suggest this structure of practice restricts expert performance. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of a sequential structure of practice during video-based training of anticipatory behavior in tennis, as well as the transfer of these skills to the performance environment.

Methods: In a pre-practice-retention-transfer design, participants viewed life-sized video of tennis rallies across practice in either a sequential order (sequential group), in which participants were exposed to opponent skills/shots in the order they occur in the sport, or a non-sequential (non-sequential group) random order.

Results: In the video-based retention test, the sequential group was significantly more accurate in their anticipatory judgments when the retention condition replicated the sequential structure compared to the non-sequential group. In the non-sequential retention condition, the non-sequential group was more accurate than the sequential group. In the field-based transfer test, overall decision time was significantly faster in the sequential group compared to the non-sequential group.

Conclusion: Findings highlight the benefits of a sequential structure of practice for the transfer of anticipatory behavior in tennis. We discuss the role of contextual information, and the importance of representative task design, for the testing and training of perceptual-cognitive skills in sport.

Fig 1

The experimental setup used in (A) laboratory-based protocol and (B) field-based protocol.

Fig 2. Mean (and SD) response accuracy (%) for the two groups on the laboratory pre-test (sequential, non-sequential), practice 1–3, and the retention test (sequential, non-sequential).

*p < .05.

Fig 3

(A) Mean (and SD) decision time (ms) in all shots, and (B) Mean (and SD) decision time (ms) and response accuracy (%) in the final shot, for the two groups (sequential, non-sequential) on the field-based pre-test and the retention test. *p < .05.