FITLIGHT Training and Its Influence on Visual-Motor Reactions and Dribbling Speed in Female Basketball Players: Prospective Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Basketball exists as a team-based sport played on a court involving intense physical demands because players need continuous movement between offensive and defensive zones. Objective: The aim of the current research was to investigate the impact of a training program implementing FITLIGHT (FITLIGHT Corp) technology on female basketball players' visual-motor interactions and dribbling speed. Methods: The study included 28 female basketball players. Participants were divided into 2 groups, experimental group (EG; n=14, mean age 18.29, SD 0.99 y; mean height 174.50, SD 2.10 cm; mean weight 75.36, SD 2.10 kg; mean training 5.64, SD 0.50 y) and control group (CG; n=14, mean age 18.50, SD 0.65 y; mean height 175.64, SD 1.55 cm; mean weight 75.57, SD 1.79 kg; mean training 5.43, SD 0.51 y), in a random manner. Pre- and post-measurements were used, and FITLIGHT training was conducted for 10 weeks with 4 sessions per week. The FITLIGHT training program targeted the elements of visual-motor interactions and dribbling speed for the EG. The CG experienced the same training regimen, but did not participate in the FITLIGHT training. The tests that were adopted and administered were the reaction time in the right hand and left hand, the reactive time (t test), and the reactive time with dribbling (t test D) tests. Statistical analysis included the calculation of descriptive statistics for minimum and maximum values and mean and SD, which were used for paired t tests for within-group comparison alongside independent t tests for between-group differences. Effect sizes (Cohen d) measured small effects at less than 0.2, medium effects at 0.2-0.5, and large effects at greater than 0.8 at P<.05. Results: All the EG improvements were statistically significant (P<.001), with reaction time in the right hand improving by 0.04 ms more than that in CG (0.016 ms; effect sizes d=0.87 for the EG and d=0.79 for the CG). The reaction time in the left hand of the EG was 0.05 ms faster (d=0.97), compared with a difference of 0.019 ms in the CG (d=0.71). Participants in the EG had 1.90 seconds more reactive time (d=0.98) than those in the CG, who had 0.85 seconds (d=0.97). For dribbling in the EG, reactive time improved by 4.08 seconds (d=0.98), much better than the improvement seen in the CG of 1.71 seconds (d=0.93) when compared with using effect sizes. The analysis of the data is finished, showing that the EG had much larger effects than the CG. Study participants achieved large effect sizes during reaction time in the right hand (d=0.51), reaction time in the left hand (d=0.71), reactive time (d=0.84), and reactive time with dribbling (d=0.88). Conclusions: A pairwise comparison between the EG and the CG also revealed a statistically significant difference in the EG, which proved that the EG outperformed the CG. This study provides evidence for the enhanced visual-motor interactions and dribbling speeds of female basketball players who received training that included the use of the FITLIGHT technique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".