4.0 Article

Adaptive Regulation in a Stable Performance Environment: Trial-To-Trial Consistency in Cue Sports Performance

期刊

MOTOR CONTROL
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 242-257

出版社

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/mc.2021-0094

关键词

nine-ball; pool; billiards; error; correction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate individual trial-to-trial performance in three tests to determine adaptive regulation as a key feature of expertise in nine-ball. Thirty-one male players were assigned to low-skilled, intermediate, or high-skilled groups. The study found that the high-skilled group performed better than the other two groups in two out of the three tests. However, there was no significant evidence of adaptation effect represented by decreased error distances across trials.
This study aimed to investigate individual trial-to-trial performance in three tests to define adaptive regulation as a key feature of expertise in nine-ball. Thirty-one male players were assigned into the low-skilled (n = 11), intermediate (n = 10), or high-skilled groups (n = 10). The power control, cue alignment, and angle tests were selected to assess participants' ability to control the power applied in shots, strike the ball straight, and understand the ball paths, respectively. Error distance and correction of error distance were identified for each shot using 2D video analysis. Results of one-way analysis of variance showed that the high-skilled group performed better in two out of the three tests than the other two groups (p = .010 for the cue alignment test; p = .002 for the angle test). However, the adaptation effect represented by the decreased error distances across trials was not observed. Pearson correlation revealed only a few significant correlations between the error distance and its correction within each participant in all tests (p < .05), and hence, the hypothesis that low correction happened after small error and vice versa is not supported.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据