ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
The impact of computerized agility training on basketball performance: a comparative study with rope ladder training.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Agility is a critical determinant of basketball performance, enabling rapid directional changes, movement reorganization, and real-time decision-making under competitive pressure. Objectives: To evaluate the effects of a four-week computerized agility training (CAT) program and rope ladder training (RLT) on general agility and basketball-specific skill performance in collegiate male basketball players. The study also aimed to examine position-specific training responses and quantify individual variability using linear mixed-effects models (LMM). Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, 64 male collegiate basketball players (aged 18-24; guards = 26, forwards = 26, centers = 12) were randomly assigned to either the CAT or RLT groups (n = 32 each group). Both interventions were performed three times per week for 4 weeks. Pre- and post-intervention assessments included a footwork speed test, a T-test for change of direction, and measures of choice reaction time and accuracy. Basketball-specific proficiency was assessed using the Combined Basketball Skill Test (CBST), incorporating performance time, penalty time, and stimulus response time. LMM were used to analyze the training effects. Results: Compared with RLT, CAT elicited significantly greater improvements in foot speed (+7.0% vs. +2.4%), choice reaction time (-6.9% vs. -0.7%), and CBST reaction time (-9.8% vs. -1.4%) (p < 0.05). CAT also led to larger reductions in overall CBST performance time (-2.1% vs. -0.3%) and completion time (-2.3% vs. -0.5%), although penalty time decreased significantly only among centers. Positional effects were observed: guards exhibited superior baseline agility, while centers demonstrated greater adaptive gains in decision-making and directional change. LMM revealed small to large effect sizes (Cohen's f = 0.12-0.74) and high conditional Conclusion: Computerized agility training significantly enhanced reactive agility and basketball-specific skill execution beyond rope ladder training, particularly in tasks involving perception and decision-making. The effects were position-dependent, with centers benefiting most from CAT. These findings highlight the limitations of traditional footwork drills and support the integration of perception-action-coupled, individualized agility training paradigms. Future research should explore the neurophysiological mechanisms and long-term retention of CAT in basketball conditioning.
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.