Trial reportPloS one2025
Effect of technology-aided training on physiological and psychological sports performance: Moderation analysis of sport involvement.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motion analysis driven by table tennis pose and analysis of participation motivation and athlete satisfaction based on artificial intelligence YOLOv8.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Wearable Biosensing and Machine Learning for Data-Driven Training and Coaching Support.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Integrative psychological interventions for stress regulation in sport: a mini-review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of technology-assisted sports training on the physiological and psychological performance of recreational exercisers (non-athletes), with particular attention to the moderating role of sport involvement (SI). A quasi-experimental design was employed, with 48 participants randomly assigned to either an experimental group (technology-assisted training) or a control group (traditional coaching) for an eight-week training program. Performance measures included exercise self-efficacy (ESE) and squat speed (SS). Data were analyzed using ANCOVA and linear mixed models. The results showed that technology-assisted training significantly improved SS (p = 0.026), but had no significant effect on ESE (p = 0.905). Furthermore, SI moderated the relationship between training method and ESE: participants with low SI demonstrated significant improvements in ESE under traditional coaching (p = 0.006), whereas those with high SI showed no significant differences between training methods. These findings suggest that while sports technology can enhance physical performance, it does not necessarily improve exercise self-efficacy. For individuals with low sport involvement, traditional coaching remains essential, highlighting the importance of combining technology with interpersonal interaction. Future training strategies should be customized according to participants' levels of sport involvement to optimize both performance and psychological motivation, thereby promoting broader health engagement and exercise participation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.