Learning Effect With Repeated Use of the DynaVision D2 Visual Motor Evaluation
1
TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008 www.PosterPresentations.com Learning Effect With Repeated Use of the DynaVision D2 Visual Motor Evaluation William P. McCormack, Nadia S. Emerson, David R. Williams, Adam J. Wells, Gerald T. Mangine, Adam M. Gonzalez, Maren S. Fragala, Jay R. Hoffman, FACSM Human Performance Laboratory, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL ABSTRACT RESULTS RESULTS (CONT.) METHODS INTRODUCTION PURPOSE RESULTS (CONT.) SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of repeated trials on performance improvements using the Dynavision™ D2 reaction device. METHODS: Twenty-one female division I college athletes (10 basketball and 11 volleyball) performed hand-eye reaction time tests of peripheral vision (PV), peripheral vision with number recall (PVNR), and visual- reaction (VR) on the Dynavision TM D2 (Dynavision, Ontario Canada). The PV and PVNR tests measured accuracy (hits) in reacting to light stimuli for one minute duration. The VR measured time in reacting to 5 separate visual stimuli with the dominant and non-dominant hands. Each volunteer completed four trials of each test. Differences between subsequent trials were analyzed with one-way repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Significant improvements in PV were seen between T1 (69.3 ± 7.8 hits), T2 (77.4 ± 12.5 hits), and T3 (82.3 ± 7.6 hits). There was no significant improvement between T3 and T4 (84.9 ± 9.5 hits). In the PVNR, no significant differences were seen between T1 (61.6 ± 11.0 hits), T2 (63.4 ± 14.3 hits), and T3 (67.3 ± 12.6 hits). However, there was significant improvement between T3 and T4 (75.2 ± 11.9 hits). The only significant difference in VR was in Trial 2 in both the dominant (T2: 0.422 ± 0.042 and T4: 0.390 ± 0.039 sec) and non-dominant hand (T2: 0.445 ± 0.093 and T4: 0.378 ± 0.029 sec) in visual reaction time. There was no significant difference in motor reaction time in the four trials in either hand. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that competitive athletes should perform three trials to achieve baseline performance measures in PV. However, as the complexity of the task increases as with the PVNR, at least a fourth trial is necessary. In addition, both visual and motor reaction time does appear to be consistent with each testing trial, suggesting that there is a limited learning effect in VR observed during consecutive testing trials when assessing competitive athletes. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of repeated trials on performance improvements using the Dynavision™ D2 reaction device. Subjects Twenty-one, female division I college athletes performed three different hand-eye reaction time tests over a two week period. Device Set-up The board was adjusted to each subject by setting the LCD screen just below eye level. Subjects were instructed to back away from the board until all the lights were visible in their peripheral vision and they could still reach all the lights. The Tests • Peripheral Vision (PV) test: Any of the 64 lights is lit until the subject touches the light at which time a new light will illuminate. Objective: Hit as many lights as possible during 60 seconds. • Peripheral Vision with Number Recall (PVNR): Any of the 64 lights is lit for 1 second and every 5 seconds a 5-digit number appears in the LCD window for 1 second. Objective: Hit as many lights as possible while verbally stating the 5- digit number. • Visual-Reaction (VR) test: The 5 horizontal lights to the left of the center ring are utilized. Upon start of the test, any of the 5-lights will illuminate and the subject has to move the hand from the starting position, hit the illuminated light and return to the starting position. Measures • During the PV and PVNR tests, the number of hits per 60 seconds is counted as the score. • During the VR test, the average visual speed (time to see the target and initiate a response) and average motor speed (the time it takes to physically respond to the target, after the initial visual reaction). A Samsung N150 computer was used to record all measures. Analysis A repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was utilized to compare the means for each test over the four trials. Results indicate that competitive athletes should perform three trials to achieve baseline performance measures in the PV test. However, as the complexity of the task increases as in the PVNR, at least a fourth trial is necessary. In addition, both visual and motor reaction time does appear to be consistent with each testing trial, suggesting that there is a limited learning effect in VR observed during consecutive testing trials when assessing competitive athletes. PV Test Significant improvements in PV were seen between T1 (69.3 ± 7.8 hits), T2 (77.4 ± 12.5 hits), and T3 (82.3 ± 7.6 hits). There was no significant improvement between T3 and T4 (84.9 ± 9.5 hits), Figure 1. Figure 1. PV Results (Mean hits ± SE) * = T2 significantly better than T1 + = T3 significantly better than T2 Figure 2. PVNR Results (Mean hits ± SE) * = T4 was significantly better than T3 Recently a light-training reaction device has been developed to enhance sensory motor integration with the purpose of improving athletic performance. It has also been suggested that this system can serve as an evaluation tool for concussions and visual- field deficits that can provide information for a team’s medical staff on issues related to return to play. However, in these circumstances it becomes critical to determine how many trials are needed to achieve a true baseline measure Table 1. Reaction Test Results (Mean ± SE) * = T2 significantly slower than T4 The DynaVision TM D2, is a light-training reaction device, developed to train sensory motor integration through the visual system. There are 64, 15 x 15mm square lights arranged in 5 concentric circles. * * + LH V isual RH V isual LH M otor RH M otor Trial 1 0.391 ± 0.019 0.404 ± 0.020 0.403 ± 0.042 0.374 ± 0.032 Trial 2 0.445 ± 0.029* 0.422 ± 0.013* 0.372 ± 0.037 0.373 ± 0.039 Trial 3 0.390 ± 0.015 0.450 ± 0.026 0.375 ± 0.027 0.378 ± 0.052 Trial 4 0.378 ± 0.009* 0.390 ± 0.012* 0.365 ± 0.025 0.337 ± 0.017 VR Test • In the VR tests, there were no significant differences between dominant and non-dominant hands across the trials. • The only significant difference in the VR tests across the left hand trials was between T2 (0.445 ± 0.029 sec) and T4 (0.378 ± 0.029 sec). • The only significant difference in the VR tests across the right hand trials was between T2 (0.422 ± 0.013 sec) and T4 (0.390 ± 0.012 sec). • There was no significant difference in motor reaction time between hands or across the four trials. Table 1. PVNR Test No significant differences were seen between T1 (61.6 ± 11.0 hits), T2 (63.4 ± 14.3 hits), and T3 (67.3 ± 12.6 hits). However, there was significant improvement between T3 and T4 (75.2 ± 11.9 hits), Figure 2.
-
Upload
joan-jarvis -
Category
Documents
-
view
14 -
download
2
description
Learning Effect With Repeated Use of the DynaVision D2 Visual Motor Evaluation William P. McCormack, Nadia S. Emerson, David R. Williams, Adam J. Wells, Gerald T. Mangine , Adam M. Gonzalez, Maren S. Fragala , Jay R. Hoffman, FACSM - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Learning Effect With Repeated Use of the DynaVision D2 Visual Motor Evaluation
TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008
www.PosterPresentations.com
Learning Effect With Repeated Use of the DynaVision D2 Visual Motor Evaluation
William P. McCormack, Nadia S. Emerson, David R. Williams, Adam J. Wells, Gerald T. Mangine, Adam M. Gonzalez, Maren S. Fragala, Jay R. Hoffman, FACSM Human Performance Laboratory, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL
ABSTRACT RESULTS RESULTS (CONT.)METHODS
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
RESULTS (CONT.)
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of repeated trials on performance improvements using the Dynavision™ D2 reaction device. METHODS: Twenty-one female division I college athletes (10 basketball and 11 volleyball) performed hand-eye reaction time tests of peripheral vision (PV), peripheral vision with number recall (PVNR), and visual-reaction (VR) on the DynavisionTM D2 (Dynavision, Ontario Canada). The PV and PVNR tests measured accuracy (hits) in reacting to light stimuli for one minute duration. The VR measured time in reacting to 5 separate visual stimuli with the dominant and non-dominant hands. Each volunteer completed four trials of each test. Differences between subsequent trials were analyzed with one-way repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Significant improvements in PV were seen between T1 (69.3 ± 7.8 hits), T2 (77.4 ± 12.5 hits), and T3 (82.3 ± 7.6 hits). There was no significant improvement between T3 and T4 (84.9 ± 9.5 hits). In the PVNR, no significant differences were seen between T1 (61.6 ± 11.0 hits), T2 (63.4 ± 14.3 hits), and T3 (67.3 ± 12.6 hits). However, there was significant improvement between T3 and T4 (75.2 ± 11.9 hits). The only significant difference in VR was in Trial 2 in both the dominant (T2: 0.422 ± 0.042 and T4: 0.390 ± 0.039 sec) and non-dominant hand (T2: 0.445 ± 0.093 and T4: 0.378 ± 0.029 sec) in visual reaction time. There was no significant difference in motor reaction time in the four trials in either hand. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that competitive athletes should perform three trials to achieve baseline performance measures in PV. However, as the complexity of the task increases as with the PVNR, at least a fourth trial is necessary. In addition, both visual and motor reaction time does appear to be consistent with each testing trial, suggesting that there is a limited learning effect in VR observed during consecutive testing trials when assessing competitive athletes.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of repeated trials on performance improvements using the Dynavision™ D2 reaction device.
SubjectsTwenty-one, female division I college athletes performed three different hand-eye reaction time tests over a two week period.
Device Set-upThe board was adjusted to each subject by setting the LCD screen just below eye level. Subjects were instructed to back away from the board until all the lights were visible in their peripheral vision and they could still reach all the lights.
The Tests• Peripheral Vision (PV) test: Any of the 64 lights is lit until
the subject touches the light at which time a new light will illuminate. Objective: Hit as many lights as possible during 60 seconds.
• Peripheral Vision with Number Recall (PVNR): Any of the 64 lights is lit for 1 second and every 5 seconds a 5-digit number appears in the LCD window for 1 second. Objective: Hit as many lights as possible while verbally stating the 5-digit number.
• Visual-Reaction (VR) test: The 5 horizontal lights to the left of the center ring are utilized. Upon start of the test, any of the 5-lights will illuminate and the subject has to move the hand from the starting position, hit the illuminated light and return to the starting position.
Measures• During the PV and PVNR tests, the number of hits per 60
seconds is counted as the score.• During the VR test, the average visual speed (time to see the
target and initiate a response) and average motor speed (the time it takes to physically respond to the target, after the initial visual reaction). A Samsung N150 computer was used to record all measures.
AnalysisA repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was utilized to compare the means for each test over the four trials.
Results indicate that competitive athletes should perform three trials to achieve baseline performance measures in the PV test. However, as the complexity of the task increases as in the PVNR, at least a fourth trial is necessary. In addition, both visual and motor reaction time does appear to be consistent with each testing trial, suggesting that there is a limited learning effect in VR observed during consecutive testing trials when assessing competitive athletes.
PV TestSignificant improvements in PV were seen between T1 (69.3 ± 7.8 hits), T2 (77.4 ± 12.5 hits), and T3 (82.3 ± 7.6 hits). There was no significant improvement between T3 and T4 (84.9 ± 9.5 hits), Figure 1.
Figure 1. PV Results (Mean hits ± SE)* = T2 significantly better than T1+ = T3 significantly better than T2
Figure 2. PVNR Results (Mean hits ± SE)* = T4 was significantly better than T3
Recently a light-training reaction device has been developed to enhance sensory motor integration with the purpose of improving athletic performance. It has also been suggested that this system can serve as an evaluation tool for concussions and visual-field deficits that can provide information for a team’s medical staff on issues related to return to play. However, in these circumstances it becomes critical to determine how many trials are needed to achieve a true baseline measure
Table 1. Reaction Test Results (Mean ± SE)* = T2 significantly slower than T4
The DynaVisionTM D2, is a light-training reaction device, developed to train sensory motor integration through the visual system. There are 64, 15 x 15mm square lights arranged in 5 concentric circles.
*
*+
LH Visual RH Visual LH Motor RH Motor
Trial 1 0.391 ± 0.019 0.404 ± 0.020 0.403 ± 0.042 0.374 ± 0.032
Trial 2 0.445 ± 0.029* 0.422 ± 0.013* 0.372 ± 0.037 0.373 ± 0.039
Trial 3 0.390 ± 0.015 0.450 ± 0.026 0.375 ± 0.027 0.378 ± 0.052
Trial 4 0.378 ± 0.009* 0.390 ± 0.012* 0.365 ± 0.025 0.337 ± 0.017
VR Test• In the VR tests, there were no significant differences
between dominant and non-dominant hands across the trials.
• The only significant difference in the VR tests across the left hand trials was between T2 (0.445 ± 0.029 sec) and T4 (0.378 ± 0.029 sec).
• The only significant difference in the VR tests across the right hand trials was between T2 (0.422 ± 0.013 sec) and T4 (0.390 ± 0.012 sec).
• There was no significant difference in motor reaction time between hands or across the four trials. Table 1.
PVNR TestNo significant differences were seen between T1 (61.6 ± 11.0 hits), T2 (63.4 ± 14.3 hits), and T3 (67.3 ± 12.6 hits). However, there was significant improvement between T3 and T4 (75.2 ± 11.9 hits), Figure 2.
