Differences In Agility Performance In Response To Visual Stimuli Using Virtual Reality Motion Analysis

Abstract

Virtual reality motion analysis is used to assess agility performance in response to visual stimuli. Whether agility differs between types of visual stimuli is unknown. This may be important when assessing performance following sport-related injuries that decrease response to visual stimuli. PURPOSE: To examine the differences between measures of agility performance in response to simple visual cues and those requiring greater cognitive processing. METHODS: Twenty healthy individuals (10 M, 10F: 23.3 ± 1.9 yrs, 83.6 ± 23.3 kg, 173.9 ± 11.2 cm) participated. Agility was assessed using a virtual reality motion analysis system (TRAZER®, TRAQ Global, LTD, Westlake, Ohio) during 4 scripted screening tests. The lateral agility (LAS) and the diagonal agility screen (DAS) required participants to move laterally/backward diagonally, right or left, to 8 targets that randomly appeared on the screen. The lateral (LF) and diagonal flanker (DF) tests required participants to move to the same targets in response to five, incongruent arrows, dependent on the direction of the middle arrow. Two trials of each screening were collected. The maximum value for reaction time (RT; s), speed (m/s), acceleration (m/s2), and deceleration (m/s2), for the dominant (DOM) and non-dominant (ND) movement, across 2 trials were used for analyses. Separate paired sample t-tests examined differences between the LAS and LF, and the DAS and DF. RESULTS: LAS RT was significantly less than LF for average RT (0.36 ± 0.13 s vs. 0.78 ± 0.11 s, P < .001), ND (0.36 ± 0.13 s vs. 0.76 ± 0.13 s, P < .001), and DOM (0.37 ± 0.16 s vs. 0.73 ± 0.18 s, P < .001). Differences in diagonal agility were observed in RT and backward speed. For RT, DAS was significantly less than DF for average RT (0.63 ± 0.21 s vs. 0.90 ± 0.17 s, P < .001), ND (0.59 ± 0.25 s vs. 0.90 ± 0.17 s, P < .001), and DOM (0.65 ± 0.22 s vs. 0.92 ± 0.22 s, P < .001). DAS backward speed was greater than DF for both the DOM (0.89 ± 0.15 m/s vs. 1.07 ± 0.20 m/s, P < .001) and ND (0.87 ± 0.12 m/s vs. 1.08 ± 0.20 m/s, P < .001). CONCLUSION: While reaction times were observed to be slower when greater cognitive processing was required, only speed in the backward diagonal directions were negatively influenced. These performance variables may be important factors to assess when returning athletes to sport following injuries that affect cognition.