BJMB
Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior
Research Articles
!
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
254 of 265
An exploratory study on the effect of a four-week stroboscopic vision training program on
soccer dribbling performance
TIM PALMER
1
| AARON J. COUTTS
1
| JOB FRANSEN
1,2
1
University of Technology Sydney, Faculty of Health, Human Performance Research Centre, Moore Park, Australia.
2
University Medical Centre Groningen, Department of Human Movement Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Correspondence to:!Job Fransen. Address: Cnr of Moore Park Rd & Driver Avenue, Moore Park NSW 2021. 0295145203.
email: job.fransen@uts.edu.au
https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v16i3.310
HIGHLIGHTS
• In concordance with previous research
findings, dribbling with stroboscopic vision
glasses teporarily impairs soccer dribbling
performance
• The findings from this study do not support
the existence of beneficial training effects of
soccer training with stroboscopic glasses on
dribbling performance and retention
ABBREVIATIONS
Strobe3 Stroboscopic level 3
Strobe7 Stroboscopic level 7
PUBLICATION DATA
Received 22 06 2022
Accepted 30 08 2022
Published 01 09 2022
BACKGROUND: Perceptual-cognitive skill is a crucial component of expert performance in sport as expert
athletes rely on the integration and processing of sensory information to execute complex actions. One of the
topics of interest to skill acquisition researchers is therefore how the perceptual cognitive system can be trained,
and how that affects sport skill performance. One of the methods suggested to be able to aid in the training of
perceptual-cognitive skill is restricted visual feedback training. Recently, stroboscopic vision glasses have been
proposed as a tool that can restrict visual feedback during sport training and may therefore provide a useful tool
for training sport-specific skills. However, despite its use in practice, evidence for the beneficial effect of
stroboscopic vision on sport-specific performance across youth athletes with a range of performance levels is
currently lacking.
AIM: Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effect of a four-week soccer training program with
(experimental group) or without (control group) stroboscopic vision on the dribbling performance of relatively fast
and slow dribblers.
METHOD: To measure dribbling performance, this study used the Ugent Soccer dribbling task.
RESULTS: A Repeated Measures MANOVA revealed that four weeks of stroboscopic vision training did not
improve soccer dribbling skill measured through the time taken to complete the dribbling task as well as the
number of touches of the ball while dribbling.
CONCLUSION: While stroboscopic vision can likely lead to short term changes in perceptual-cognitive skill, it is
likely not related to persistent changes in soccer dribbling performance in youth soccer players.
KEYWORDS: Visual restriction | Football | Perceptual-cognitive training | Expertise | Technical skill
INTRODUCTION
A relationship exists between perceptual-cognitive ability and sport performance,
which may suggest that improvements in the performance of the perceptual-cognitive
system could lead to improvements in sport skill performance
1,2
. Accordingly, in the
pursuit of sporting excellence, there has been a growing interest in the use of perceptual-
cognitive training as a means to improve sport performance
3-6
. Many of these training
programs are underpinned by the theory that practice under perceptually and cognitively
demanding circumstances can lead to superior performance in normal conditions by
training participants to pick up and process relevant information quicker, in order to turn it
into an appropriate motor response
7
. However, these claims have not been substantiated
across a variety of perceptual-cognitive training modalities.
Historically, sports vision training methods have used temporal or spatial occlusion
paradigms
8
, the training of selective visual attention allocation processes (e.g.
9
) and
video-based training tasks (e.g.
10
), which are often conducted in controlled laboratory
settings (for a more detailed explanation of these and other methods consult
2
). As such,
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
255 of 265
whether these same training programs could be used in sport practice is a source of
contention in the literature. While Hadlow and colleagues
5
provide an expansive overview
of sports vision and perceptual-cognitive training tools that have emerged with recent
technological advancements, they also state that for these tools to be effective, the
perceptual function targeted in training, the training stimuli and the response type should
correspond maximally to the competition environment. These observations concord with
those made by Travassos and colleagues
11
who concluded from their meta analysis that
the superior perceptual-cognitive skills demonstrated by expert versus novice performers
were negatively related to the similarity between actions completed during tasks involved
in research studies and those observed in sport. This was further echoed by Broadbent
and coworkers
12
who concluded that “high levels of task functionality and action fidelity
seem to be required for researchers examining the processes and mechanisms that
underpin expert performance in sport. However, a suitable balance is required between the
need to maintain ecological validity, on the one hand, and the desire for internal validity
and experimental control, on the other”. In conclusion, for perceptual-cognitive training to
be effective, it should be performed in an environment that closely replicates the
perception and action demands of the competition environment
5,13
. Nonetheless, in order
for researchers to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of practice, it should be done in a
context in which experimental control is not unnecessarily sacrificed
12
. Therefore,
research should explore the training of perceptual-cognitive skills through engagement in
sport-relevant tasks that reflect those used in competition, but still allow researchers
sufficient control to ensure experimental rigour and precision of measurement.
Stroboscopic vision training is an increasingly prominent domain of sports vision
training
5,14
. Previous studies have shown detriments to short-term performance in complex
soccer-related motor skills such as dribbling
15
and passing, controlling and receiving
16
under conditions of stroboscopic vision. Both these studies also observed that
performance decrements were positively related to skill level. With regards to dribbling,
Fransen et al.
15
concluded this could be the result of the fact that under higher dribbling
velocities, high performing dribblers lose sight of the ball for longer as the ball displaces
further under the intermittent periods of no vision, forcing the dribblers to keep the ball
closer than they are used to. Beavan et al.
16
studied this same phenomenon, but
hypothesised that the fact that more expert players have more exposure to training, and
may therefore paradoxically be more reliant on their vision (i.e. the Specificity of Practice
Hypothesis
17
) leading to greater performance decrements when visual feedback is
reduced. Regardless of the specific mechanisms at work, it is clear that the inclusion of
stroboscopic vision stresses the perceptual-cognitive system and elicits, at least in the
short term, adaptations in soccer-specific behaviours. However, the extent to which these
short-term adaptations can lead to longer term changes in soccer-specific skill is unknown.
It is proposed that intermittently disturbing visual information during the execution
of a skill will help the performer adapt to the limited visual information available during
match or game play, leading to a transfer from the practice environment to competition
18
.
Wilkins and Appelbaum
14
hypothesise that when practising under conditions of rapid and
repeated interruptions of visual input, two things may occur. First, the player may utilise the
limited visual information they receive in a more efficient manner, or second, they develop
an increase reliance on other sensory information such as kinaesthetic awareness or
auditory information. They argue that regardless of the mechanism at play, the individual,
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
256 of 265
through stroboscopic vision training, engages in potentially advantageous strategies that
they otherwise wouldn’t were they to experience full vision. This could then ultimately lead
to more skilful behaviours as a result of engaging in stroboscopic vision training, Many
peer-reviewed studies demonstrate improvements in perceptual skills, including central
motion sensitivity
18
, short-term memory retention
19
, anticipatory timing
20
and dynamic
visual acuity
21
, among many more, as a result of a practising under conditions of
intermittently restricted feedback. However, evidence on whether and how these improved
perceptual-cognitive skills lead to improvements in on-field performance is severely lacking
5,12
. Some studies have investigated the effect of stroboscopic vision training on sport-
specific performance. For example, Mitroff et al.
22
showed that after 16 weeks of
stroboscopic vision training, passing (defenders) and shooting (attackers) precision was
improved. Furthermore, Hülsdünker et al.
23
showed that 4 weeks of stroboscopic vision
training lead to improved smash-defence performance in badminton players. However, the
risk of bias in these studies due to very low sample sizes and methodological design
issues is substantial. In response, Hülsdünker et al.
24
studied the perceptual-cognitive
and badminton field performance chances that resulted from a 10 week stroboscopic
training program and concluded that while changes in visuomotor reaction speed were
observed, no changes in on-field performance could be attributed to the stroboscopic
vision training program.
Evidently, more studies are needed that investigate the effect of stroboscopic
vision on the performance of sport-specific skills which can add to the body of literature
supporting or refuting the value of stroboscopic vision training for the improvement of
sport-specific skills. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine the effect of a
stroboscopic vision training program on the performance and short-term retention of
dribbling performance in youth soccer players using an on-field dribbling test. Due to the
relatively scarce literature examining the far transfer between skill training using
stroboscopic vision glasses and skill performance, the problem posed in this study is
relatively ill-defined. As such, this study can only be considered an exploratory study. An
exploratory study is useful when the problem posed to the researchers is not well defined
and when the researchers do not intend to provide conclusive evidence as a result of the
study’s findings. Hence, no hypothesis on the efficacy of our training intervention is
provided to allow for non-directional exploration of the study’s findings.
METHODS
Participants
A priori sample size calculation (G*power, version 3.1) revealed a sample size of
62 athletes is required given the following parameters: Repeated measures MANOVA with
within and between-subjects factors, Cohen’s f effect size of 0.50 based on previous
research examining the effect of stroboscopic vision on dribbling performance
15
, power =
0.8 and an alpha level of p<0.05. This a priori sample size calculation is based on the only
other research using soccer dribbling performance as the outcome variable, and the
largest effect size reported (partial eta squared [η
p
2
]= 0.45 for differences between
stroboscopic frequency conditions). Therefore, this study must be viewed as exploratory,
and any results should be viewed in light of its sample size restrictions, especially as more
research and updated effect sizes become available. Finally, a convenience sample of 61
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
257 of 265
youth soccer players (aged 11.2 ± 1.3 years) was recruited from Australian representative
club soccer teams for the initial part of the study, which was reduced to a convenience
sample of 36 players for the training study. Before the commencement of the study,
parents and/or guardians were familiarised with the testing procedure and requirements,
and written consent was obtained from all participants and their parents or guardians. The
Institutional Ethics Committee approved all experimental procedures.
Materials and Procedure
Soccer dribbling ability was assessed using an adapted version of the Ghent
University Dribbling Test. It largely followed the procedure of Vandendriessche et al.
25
,
who reported that an intra-class correlation analysis (single measure) indicated high
reliability values for dribbling with the ball in a sample of 40 adolescents (ICC = 0.81). To
complete the dribbling task, participants could use any foot to guide a soccer ball as
quickly as possible in a set pattern through eight cones marked by training cones on a dry
grass field pitch (Figure 1), after which the ball was stopped inside a 1 m by 1 m square,
stopping the time. Dribbling time (time to complete the dribbling course) was recorded to
the nearest 0.01 s on two occasions based on a video recording sampled at 60Hz. When
the player was unable to keep control of the ball (ball travels further than 2m from the
course) or altered the position of a cone through a collision with their body or the ball, they
received a warning and were asked to stop and repeat the assessment. Each trial was
filmed on a JVC camcorder (Model No.GZ-RX120BAA, Yokohama, Japan, 60 Hz sampling
rate) mounted on a SLIK F153 tripod. For each video, the time (to the nearest 0.01 s, using
a handheld stopwatch) and the total number of foot-to-ball contacts made by each player
from start to finish was recorded by the same person on two separate viewings. The
stopwatch was started when the player crossed the starting line and time was stopped
when the player stopped the ball inside the finish square. The average time taken to
complete the dribbling course and the average number of touches needed on both
viewings was subsequently calculated and recorded.
Figure 1. Outline of the adapted version of the UGent Dribble Test
Following a familiarisation period (two practice runs through the course without the
ball), each participant performed three separate assessments under three conditions of
visual feedback in a randomised order. One condition involved no visual restriction,
whereas the other two conditions involved intermittent restriction of visual feedback using
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
258 of 265
the Nike Vapor Strobe stroboscopic glasses (Nike Inc., Beaverton, Oregon, USA). These
conditions were set at stroboscopic level 3 (Strobe3, stroboscopic frequency of 4 Hz, clear
vision for 0.1s, opaque vision for 0.150s) and stroboscopic level 7 (Strobe7, stroboscopic
frequency of 1.33 Hz, clear vision for 0.1s, opaque vision for 0.650s), as per the methods
used by Fransen et al. (2017). These stroboscopic glasses intermittently restrict (opaque)
and allow (clear vision) a full visual flow of an object and the performance environment,
meaning that continuous tracking of objects for example may be more complicated with
than without stroboscopic vision. Additionally, in the conditions used in this study,
stroboscopic level 3 yielded less visual restriction than stroboscopic level 7 due to a higher
stroboscopic frequency (4Hz vs 1.33Hz respectively) and resultingly shorter periods of
visual restriction.
Training Study
A convenience sample of thirty-six participants were recruited following the
baseline assessments to complete a training program aimed at improving soccer-relevant
skill. This sample size was much lower than the required sample size based on an a priori
sample size calculation (n = 62) but represented two conveniently accessible teams of
relatively similar ages who trained and competed together. These participants were
randomly allocated using a random number allocator to two equally sized control and
intervention groups (n = 18). Both control and intervention groups completed four training
sessions over four weeks, each of a 20 minutes duration. Training sessions were
standardised for both groups and conducted concurrently. Instructions were given at the
commencement of each exercise on how to complete the task. No performance or
feedback instruction was given during a training exercise. Training involved participants
performing dribbling exercises either under normal visual conditions (control) or restricted
visual conditions (intervention). For the intervention group, visual conditions were restricted
at Strobe3 for the first training session, with all intervention participants progressing to
level 4, 5 and 6 for training session 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The control group completed
the same training drills under normal visual conditions. Following the last training session,
all participants completed a post-test and a one-week retention test. The post-test followed
the same protocol as the pre-test with all participants completing three dribble test
assessments under the three varying conditions of visual feedback. During the retention
period, players did not engage in structured team training. During the one-week retention
test, participants completed one assessment of the dribble test, only under normal visual
conditions since the aim of the study was to investigate the effect of stroboscopic training
on in-situ dribbling performance. An outline of the experiment can be found in Figure 2.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
259 of 265
Figure 2. Experimental overview.
Statistical Analysis
Before analysis, players were divided into relatively fast or slow dribblers using a
median split. This would allow for exploratory analyses into whether differential training
effects could be observed for faster or slower dribblers. The use of this within-task
subdivision according to dribbling proficiency was based on previous findings
15,16
which
revealed that more skilled soccer players’ skill performance is more substantially affected
by visual restriction using stroboscopic vision than that of less skilled players. Before
analysis, a Kolmogorov-Smirmov test and visual representations of the data sample
determined normal distributions of the variables used in these analyses. To examine if
different levels of visual restriction were associated with dribbling performance, similar to
previous research
15
, a repeated measures MANOVA using the stroboscopic condition (no
strobe, strobe level 3 and strobe level 7) as a within-subjects factor and dribbling
proficiency (relatively fast or slow dribbler) as a between-subjects factor was executed,
where the dependent variables were the amount of touches and the time required to
complete the dribbling course. To investigate the effect of training under stroboscopic
conditions on dribbling performance, a second repeated measures MANOVA was used
with time (pre, post and retention test) as a within-subjects factor, dribbling proficiency (fast
or slow) and experimental group (control or intervention) as between-subjects factors and
dribbling time and the amount of touches required to complete the course as dependent
variables.
In all analyses, Bonferroni corrections were used for multiple comparisons, and
partial eta squared (η
p
2
) effect sizes (0.01-0.06, small; 0.06-0.14 moderate; >0.14 large
26
)
were used to investigate the magnitude of effects. Data analysis was conducted using
SPSS 25. The alpha criterion level for significance was set at p < 0.05.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
260 of 265
RESULTS
Cross-sectional analysis
A repeated measures MANOVA showed no significant multivariate main
interaction dribbling proficiency*stroboscopic condition (F
(4, 56)
= 0.472, p = 0.756, ES =
0.03). However, significant, large multivariate main effects were found for stroboscopic
condition (F
(4, 56)
= 16.674, p < 0.001, ES = 0.54) and dribbling proficiency (F
(2, 58)
=
14.857, p < 0.001, ES = 0.34). Further univariate analysis revealed a significant large main
effect of stroboscopic condition on time taken (F
(2,118)
= 38.972, p < 0.001, ES = 0.40) and
number of touches (F
(2,118)
= 22.658, p < 0.001, ES = 0.28) regardless of whether the
participant was classified as fast or slow. Specifically, dribbling times were the slowest in
Strobe7 condition (Strobe7 Time [95% CI] = 23.4 ± 3.1s [22.7-24.2s], Strobe3 Time = 22.6
± 2.9s [22.0 – 23.3s], No Strobe Time = 20.9 ± 2.2s [20.5 – 21.4]) and the number of
touches was highest in the Strobe7 condition (Strobe7 touches [95% CI] = 40.1 ± 4.0
touches [39.1 – 41.1 touches], Strobe3 = 38.8 ± 3.6 touches [37.9 – 39.7 touches], No
Strobe = 36.8 ± 3.6 touches [35.9 – 37.7 touches]). Table 1 details the descriptive
statistics (mean ± (SD), F-values and partial eta squared effect sizes) for fast and slow
dribblers for each visual condition.
Effect of stroboscopic training
A repeated measures MANOVA showed that changes in dribbling performance
between pre, post and retention tests was not significantly affected by whether dribblers
were assigned to a relatively fast or relatively slow dribbling group (Time*Dribbling
proficiency*CI: F
(4.29)
= 0.959, p = 0.445, ES = 0.12). Based on the lack of a three-way
interaction effect players were no longer assigned to a relatively fast or relatively slow
dribbling group for subsequent analysis of the training effects and hence the effect of
stroboscopic vision training was analysed on all participants collectively. A repeated
measures MANOVA demonstrated no significant Time*Intervention group (F
(31, 4)
= 2.650,
p = 0.052, ES = 0.26) interaction effect or Intervention group (F
(33, 2)
= 0.346, p = 0.71, ES
= 0.02), or Time (F
(31, 4)
= 2.135, p = 0.100, ES = 0.216) main effects on dribbling
performance. Despite the absence of significant multivariate main and interaction effects,
the large effect size for the Time*Intervention group effect warranted further univariate
analysis. Univariate analysis found no significant Time*Intervention group interaction effect
on dribble time (F
(2,68)
= 0.087, p = 0.916, ES = 0.00) but did reveal a significant moderate
time*intervention group effect on the amount of ball touches (F
(2,68)
= 4.308, p = 0.017, ES
= 0.11). Further investigation of the interaction effect on the amount of touches on the ball
revealed that in the control group the amount of touches remained steady from pre to post
(Δpre-post control = 0.1 touches) test but decreased from post to retention test (Δpost-ret
Table 1. Dribbling time and number of touches for fast and slow dribblers under different conditions of stroboscopic vision
Fast
Slow
Strobe
Dribble speed
Interaction
No Strobe
Strobe3
Strobe7
No Strobe
Strobe3
Strobe7
F
ES
F
ES
F
ES
Time (s)
19.44 ± 0.97
21.39 ± 2.5
22.37 ± 2.49
22.41 ± 2.17
23.9 ± 2.67
24.55 ± 3.33
38.972**
0.40
23.274**
0.28
0.917
0.01
Touches (n)
36 ± 3
38 ± 3
39 ± 4
38 ± 4
40 ± 4
41 ± 4
22.658**
0
10.454**
0.15
0.158
0.00
Note: Data is means ± SD. * = p < .05: ** = p < 0.01. ES = partial eta squared. No Strobe = normal visual conditions. Strobe3 = stroboscopic frequency of 4 Hz, clear vision for
0.1s, opaque vision for 0.150s). Strobe7 = stroboscopic frequency of 1.33 Hz, clear vision for 0.1s, opaque vision for 0.650s.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
261 of 265
control = 1.0 touches) while in the intervention group there was a large decline in the
number of touches required from pre to post (Δpre-post intervention = 2.7 touches) but a
subsequent increase in the retention test (Δpost-ret intervention = 1.9 touches). No main
effect of time was observed for dribble time (F
(2,68)
= 1.901, p = 0.157, ES = 0.05) or
touches (F
(2,68)
= 2.606, p = 0.081, ES = 0.07). No main effect was observed for
intervention group on dribble time (F
(1,34)
= 0.712, p = 0.405, ES = 0.02) and touches (F
(1,34)
= 0.030, p = 0.863, ES = 0.00). Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics (mean ± (SD),
F-values and effect sizes) for the control and intervention groups for each dribble test (pre,
post & retention).
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of a four-week stroboscopic vision
training program embedded in the regular training of youth soccer players on skill
performance (dribbling time and ball control) measured using the UGent soccer dribbling
task. While the results of this study showed that intermittently restricting vision using
stroboscopic glasses resulted in poorer dribbling performance, both in terms of the time
taken and the amount of touches required to complete a dribbling course, no training-
related performance changes in dribbling performance were observed. These findings
correspond with our hypothesis and with a recent study by Hülsdünker et al.
24
who did not
reveal on-field performance differences in 32 badminton players' smash defence skill after
10 weeks of stroboscopic vision training.
When the amount of visual feedback during performance is reduced, a decrease in
performance is usually observed
27
. Indeed, both Fransen et al.
15
and Beavan et al.
16
who
studied how stroboscopic vision affects soccer performance concluded that under
intermittently restricted vision conditions, players perform worse in dribbling and passing,
shooting and controlling tasks. The same performance decrement as a result of
stroboscopic vision was observed in the current study, where dribbling performance was
worse with increasing levels of visual restriction through an increased duration of the
periods with opaque vision vs full vision. In these previous studies on the effect of
stroboscopic vision on dribbling and passing, shooting and controlling performance,
relative experts were also found to be more substantially affected by stroboscopic vision
conditions
15,16
. These authors offered two potential explanations for what they observed.
The first explanation may lie in the ‘Specificity of Practice Hypothesis’ which proposes that
learning is specific to the conditions of practice during skill acquisition
17
. This theory
indicates that if highly skilled soccer players were highly dependent on visual feedback
during training, due to a potentially greater exposure to training under full vision conditions,
the limited availability of visual feedback while dribbling under stroboscopic conditions will
result in decreased performance. A second explanation is related to the dribbling velocity
Table 2. Dribbling time and number of touches for pre, post and retention tests for control and intervention groups following stroboscopic training
Control
Intervention
C/I
Time
Time * C/I
Pre
Post
Retention
Pre
Post
Retention
F
ES
F
ES
F
ES
Time (s)
21.36 ± 2.6
20.85 ± 2.6
21.25 ± 2.9
20.71 ± 2.3
20.08 ± 2.5
20.75 ± 2.2
0.712
0.021
1.901
0.053
0.087
0.003
Touches (n)
37 ± 34
37 ± 4
36 ± 4
37 ± 5
35 ± 4
37 ± 4
0.030
0.001
2.606
0.071
4.308*
0.112
Note: Data is means ± SD, * = p < .05: ** = p < 0.01, ES = partial eta squared, C/I = Control/Intervention, Time = pre, post, retention.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
262 of 265
of more expert performers. As the speed of dribbling increases, greater changes in ball
position are observed following each intermittent period of visual restriction, making it
difficult for fast dribblers participants to predict ball motion and make appropriate
adjustments when vision is available. This may result in more expert dribblers dribbling
deliberately slower in order to maintain control of the ball. While in this study a gradual
decrease in performance was observed between the full vision, Strobe3 and Strobe7
conditions, with the worst dribbling performances observed in conditions with the least
amount of available visual feedback, no differences in the effect of stroboscopic vision on
performance were observed in relatively slow or fast dribblers. This misalignment between
the findings from previous research on soccer dribbling skill
15
and the current study may
have been the participants’ level of expertise. The previous study
15
utilised a relatively
homogeneous cohort of players from Belgian high-level football teams aged between 10-
18 years whereas participants in the present study were recruited from an Australian
representative football club, were aged between 9-13 years, and could likely be considered
more heterogeneous in terms of their dribbling skill (i.e. standard deviations of slow and
fast dribblers in the control condition of Fransen et al.
15
= 1.34 and 1.08s respectively; in
the current study = 2.17 and 0.97s respectively). This highlights that differences in training
age, training years and existing skill level may affect the extent to which stroboscopic
vision affects performance.
As hypothesised, the four-week stroboscopic vision training intervention used in
this study was not related to dribbling performance improvements in youth soccer players.
While undoubtedly a lack of training effects in the current study may be a result of the
study’s lack of statistical power (despite using similar or larger sample sizes than have
previously been reported in similar studies) or the relative short duration of the training
program, the findings of the current study are in line with a recently conducted study
23
which showed no beneficial effects of stroboscopic vision training on badminton smash-
return performance. Therefore, the results of this study provide further, preliminary
evidence that while stroboscopic vision training can elicit acute changes in perceptual
performance
19
, it may not lead to improvements in sport-relevant skill. However, further
studies need to be conducted, including those with longer practice programs with more
exposure to stroboscopic training and those studying different soccer skills, to support this
conclusion.
One interesting finding was revealed in the current study which may warrant
further attention in subsequent studies. While stroboscopic vision training was not related
to changes in dribbling performance, univariate analysis showed that stroboscopic vision
training had a moderate and temporary effect on the number of touches required to exert
control over the ball during dribbling, without therefore affecting dribbling speed. The
findings in this study suggests that players who trained under restricted visual conditions
may have subsequently changed their dribbling performance, by touching the ball less
often than before. The same was not observed for the control condition. These findings
may indicate that training under stroboscopic vision conditions may improve the ability to
predict where the ball is at any point in time, ultimately requiring less touches on the ball to
guide the ball through the cones on the dribbling course. While not explored explicitly,
these results may allude to the potential for stroboscopic vision training to elicit short term
decreases in visual attention allocation to the ball. This would be in line with research that
found that skilled dribblers are able to extract more pertinent information from the
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
263 of 265
performance environment by allocating visual attention towards other sources of
information other than the ball such as opposition players, positioning of teammates and
environmental cues. This may ultimately provide players with critical information that
enables them to make effective decisions during on-field performance
28
.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the results of this exploratory study showed no beneficial effects of
stroboscopic training on on-field dribbling performance, despite revealing moderate
differences between the intervention and control group in pre-post differences in the
amount of touches on the ball. While this study is undoubtedly an addition to the existing
literature thanks to the use of an intervention and the assessment of a soccer-relevant
skill, the findings of this study need to be viewed in light of its limitations. First, despite
previous recommendations that stroboscopic training studies should utilise a single blind
approach by implementing non-occluded glasses for control participants to act as a
placebo
18
, these recommendations were not followed in this study. This is particularly
relevant as athletes feel stroboscopic glasses make training feel more novel and enjoyable
29
. While skill retention was investigated, the lack of a transfer test limits the ability of the
study to measure whether changes in dribbling performance as a result of stroboscopic
training would demonstrate adaptability to in situ dribbling performance. Additionally, while
this study examined the behaviour of youth footballers ‘in the field’, and used a
stroboscopic vision intervention in the context of real practice, the task used (i.e. the Ugent
Dribble Test) is not representative of actual game play. Therefore, the lack of association
we observed between the intervention and dribbling outcomes may not be representative
of the association between stroboscopic vision interventions and actual competitive game
play. Next, while this study randomly allocated players into an intervention or control
group, it did so by allocating an equal amount of participants to each group. While this
does not constitute true randomisation, it increased the feasibility of the study where each
practice session consisted of the same number of players. Last, the sample used in this
study was a convenience sample and not a random sample drawn from the population. As
a result, the findings of this study may not be representative of the population of footballers
of that age.
REFERENCES
1. Abernethy B, Wood JM. Do generalized visual training programmes for sport really work?
An experimental investigation. J Sports Sci. 2001;19(3):203-222. doi:
10.1080/026404101750095376
2. Williams AM, Ford PR, Eccles DW, Ward P. Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport and its
acquisition: Implications for applied cognitive psychology. Appl Cogn Psychol.
2011;25(3):432-442. doi: 10.1002/acp.1710
3. Williams AM, Ford PR. Expertise and expert performance in sport. Int Rev Sport Exerc
Psychol. 2008;1(1):4-18. doi: 10.1080/17509840701836867
4. Appelbaum LG, Erickson G. Sports vision training: A review of the state-of-the-art in digital
training techniques. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2016;1-30.
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
264 of 265
doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2016.1266376
5. Hadlow SM, Panchuk D, Mann DL, Portus MR, Abernethy B. Modified perceptual training
in sport: A new classification framework. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21(9):950-958.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2018.01.011
6. Fadde PJ, Zaichkowsky L. Training perceptual-cognitive skills in sports using technology. J
Sport Psychol Action. 2018;9(4):239-248. doi: 10.1080/21520704.2018.1509162
7. Schwab S, Memmert D. The impact of a sports vision training program in youth field
hockey players. J Sports Sci Med. 2012;11(4):624.
8. Abernethy B, Russell DG. The relationship between expertise and visual search strategy in
a racquet sport. Hum Mov Sci. 1987;6(4):283-319. doi: 10.1016/0167-9457(87)90001-7
9. Hagemann N, Strauss B, Cañal-Bruland R. Training perceptual skill by orienting visual
attention. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2006;28(2):143-158. doi: 10.1123/jsep.28.2.143
10. Farrow D, Chivers P, Hardingham C, Sachse S. The effect of video-based perceptual
training on the tennis return of serve. Int J Sport Psychol. 1998;
11. Travassos B, Araujo D, Davids K, O'hara K, Leitão J, Cortinhas A. Expertise effects on
decision-making in sport are constrained by requisite response behaviours–A meta-
analysis. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2013;14(2):211-219. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.11.002
12. Broadbent DP, Causer J, Williams AM, Ford PR. Perceptual-cognitive skill training and its
transfer to expert performance in the field: Future research directions. Eur J Sport Sci.
2015;15(4):322-331. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.957727
13. Inns J, Petancevski E, Novak AR, Fransen J. Decision-making assessments in youth team
invasion game athletes - A systematic scoping review. unpublished study.
14. Wilkins L, Appelbaum LG. An early review of stroboscopic visual training: insights,
challenges and accomplishments to guide future studies. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol.
2020;13(1):65-80. doi: 10.1080/1750984X.2019.1582081
15. Fransen J, Lovell TW, Bennett KJ, Deprez D, Deconinck FJ, Lenoir M et al. The Influence
of Restricted Visual Feedback on Dribbling Performance in Youth Soccer Players. Mot
Control. 2017;21(2):158-167. doi:10.1123/mc.2015-0059!
16. Beavan A, Hanke L, Spielmann J, Skorski S, Mayer J, Meyer T et al. The effect of
stroboscopic vision on performance in a football specific assessment. Sci Med Footb.
2021;5(4):317-322. doi: 10.1080/24733938.2020.1862420
17. Proteau L, Marteniuk RG, Lévesque L. A sensorimotor basis for motor learning: Evidence
indicating specificity of practice. Q J Exp Psychol Section A. 1992;44(3):557-575.
doi: 10.1080/14640749208401298
18. Appelbaum LG, Schroeder JE, Cain MS, Mitroff SR. Improved visual cognition through
stroboscopic training. Front Psychol. 2011;2:276. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00276
19. Appelbaum LG, Cain MS, Schroeder JE, Darling EF, Mitroff SR. Stroboscopic visual
training improves information encoding in short-term memory. Atten Percept Psychophys.
2012;74(8):1681-1691. doi: 10.3758/s13414-012-0344-6
BJMB! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Research Articles
Brazilian(Journal(of(Motor(Behavior(
(
Palmer, Coutts,
Fransen
2022
VOL.16
N.3
265 of 265
20. Smith TQ, Mitroff SR. Stroboscopic training enhances anticipatory timing. Int J Exerc Sci.
2012;5(4):344-353.
21. Holliday J. Effect of stroboscopic vision training on dynamic visual acuity scores: Nike
Vapor Strobe® Eyewear. All Graduate Plan B and other Reports. 2013;262.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports/262. doi: https://doi.org/10.26076/201c-8992
22. Mitroff SR, Friesen P, Bennett D, Yoo H, Reichow AW. Enhancing ice hockey skills
through stroboscopic visual training: a pilot study. Athl Train Sports Health Care.
2013;5(6):261-264. doi: 10.3928/19425864-20131030-02
23. Hülsdünker T, Rentz C, Ruhnow D, Käsbauer H, Strüder HK, Mierau A. The effect of 4-
week stroboscopic training on visual function and sport-specific visuomotor performance in
top-level badminton players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019;14(3):343-350. doi:
10.1123/ijspp.2018-0302
24. Hülsdünker T, Gunasekara N, Mierau A. Short-and Long-Term Stroboscopic Training
Effects on Visuomotor Performance in Elite Youth Sports. Part 1: Reaction and Behavior.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020;(5):960-972. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002541
25. Vandendriessche JB, Vaeyens R, Vandorpe B, Lenoir M, Lefevre J, Philippaerts RM.
Biological maturation, morphology, fitness, and motor coordination as part of a selection
strategy in the search for international youth soccer players (age 15–16 years). J Sports
Sci. 2012;30(15):1695-1703. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2011.652654.
26. Cohen J. A Power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155-159. doi: 10.1037//0033-
2909.112.1.155
27. Ward P, Williams AM, Bennett SJ. Visual search and biological motion perception in
tennis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002;73(1):107-112. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2002.10608997
28. Williams AM. Perceptual skill in soccer: Implications for talent identification and
development. J Sports Sci. 2000;18(9):737-750. doi: 10.1080/02640410050120113
29. Wilkins L, Nelson C, Tweddle S. Stroboscopic Visual Training: a Pilot Study with Three
Elite Youth Football Goalkeepers. J Cogn Enhanc. 2018;2(1):3-11. doi:!10.1007/s41465-
017-0038-z
Citation: Palmer T, Coutts AJ, Fransen J. (2022).!An exploratory study on the effect of a four-week stroboscopic vision
training program on soccer dribbling performance. Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior, 16(3):254-265.
Editor-in-chief: Dr Fabio Augusto Barbieri - São Paulo State University (UNESP), Bauru, SP, Brazil.
Associate editors: Dr José Angelo Barela - São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rio Claro, SP, Brazil; Dr Natalia
Madalena Rinaldi - Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES), Vitória, ES, Brazil; Dr Renato de Moraes – University
of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Copyright:© 2022 Palmer, Coutts and Fransen and BJMB. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
DOI:!https://doi.org/10.20338/bjmb.v16i3.310