Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Reactive footwork training combines rapid multidirectional movement with perceptual decision making; however, its effects in non-athlete university students are unclear. This study compared reactive footwork training with simple-reaction training. Methods: Eighteen sport science students were randomly allocated (nine per group) to a five-station reactive circuit with dual-task stimuli or a three-station simple-reaction programme, three times weekly for four weeks. Sessions were matched for duration (600 s) but not for work time (360 s vs. 240 s). The outcomes were the Lower-Extremity Motor Coordination Test (LEMOCOT; primary outcome, designated post hoc), the Y-Balance Test, and the Thai Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Results: After baseline adjustment (ANCOVA, defined post hoc), LEMOCOT scores were higher in the experimental group than in controls for the dominant limb (mean difference: 8.66 contacts; 95% CI: 1.29–16.03) and the non-dominant limb (10.39, 1.56–19.22; ηp2 = 0.30). After Bonferroni correction for the two limbs (unadjusted p = 0.0243 and 0.0242), both differences were borderline (adjusted p = 0.049 and 0.048) and were not consistently robust in sensitivity analyses. Balance and MoCA scores did not differ between groups. Conclusions: Within the same 10 min session, reactive footwork training was associated with greater improvement in bilateral coordination than simple-reaction training, but this borderline, post hoc finding is preliminary and needs confirmation. As the reactive programme also involved 50% more work time, the advantage cannot be attributed to stimulus reactivity alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sespheng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: