Key result
A 5-week biofeedback reaction-time training program significantly improved reaction time performance among elite speed skaters (p = .001).
Why the study?
Does twice-weekly biofeedback reaction time training improve reaction time performance in elite speed skaters?
Does twice-weekly biofeedback reaction time training improve reaction time performance in elite speed skaters?
Effect estimate: F (1, 9) = 679.2
p-value: p=.001
A 5-week biofeedback reaction-time training program significantly improved reaction times in elite speed skaters.
May support biofeedback for reaction time in elite athletes; hypothesis-generating and requires controlled trials before practice change.
As part of a larger training program, applying a new biofeedback protocol for improving reaction time (RT) performance among elite speed skaters at the Canadian Speedskating National Training Center in Montreal, Canada, provided an advantage at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games, allowing athletes to assert themselves and claim the best starting position during the event. Each athlete participated in a twice-weekly biofeedback RT training for 5 weeks, for a total of 600 RT practice trials, simulating speed-skating activities such as reacting to commands of “go to the start,” “ready,” and the sound of a signal from a gun to start. There was an overall improvement in RT performance from the beginning to the end of the 5-week period, with the largest improvement occurring between Weeks 4 and 5 of the training, F (1, 9) = 679.2, p = .001. The results suggest that biofeedback protocols will become an essential part of a winning strategy for future interventions in speed skater training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harvey et al. (2011) studied Elite speed skaters. Biofeedback reaction-time training was evaluated on Reaction time (RT) performance (F (1, 9) = 679.2, p=.001). A 5-week biofeedback reaction-time training program significantly improved reaction time performance among elite speed skaters (p = .001).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: