Cognitive Training for
Agility: The Integration
Between Perception and
Action
Tania Spiteri, PhD,1 Fleur McIntyre, PhD,1 Christina Specos, MSc,2 and Shawn Myszka, PhD3
1
School of Health Science, The University of Notre Dame Fremantle, Fremantle, Australia; 2Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana; and 3Movement Mastery, Minneapolis, Minnesota
ABSTRACT
AGILITY IS A KEY FEATURE WITHIN
MANY STRENGTH AND CONDITION-
ING PROGRAMS, WITH THE DEVEL-
OPMENT OF ATHLETE’S PHYSICAL
AND TECHNICAL QUALITIES BEING
THE PRIMARY FOCUS TO INCREASE
PERFORMANCE. HOWEVER, THIS
APPROACH IS SOMEWHAT LIMITED
AS TRUE RETENTION AND TRANS-
FER OF PERFORMANCE FROM
TRAINING TO SPORT CANNOT BE
ACHIEVED UNLESS COACHES
DEVELOP AN ATHLETE’S ABILITY TO
IDENTIFY RELEVANT STIMULI AND
LEARN TO ADAPT MOVEMENT IN
RESPONSE TO VARYING CON-
STRAINTS. THE PURPOSES OF THIS
ARTICLE ARE TO DISCUSS THE
CONSTRAINTS ACTING ON THE
ATHLETE AND PROVIDE EXAMPLES
OF HOW THESE CAN BE MANIPU-
LATED TO ENHANCE INFORMATION-
MOVEMENT COUPLING DURING
TRAINING TO IMPROVE THE OVER-
ALL AGILITY PERFORMANCE.
INTRODUCTION
he most common athletic maneu-
T ver requiring a combination of
physical, technical, and tactical
Address correspondence to Dr. Tania Spiteri,
tania.spiteri@nd.edu.au.
Copyright
National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
attributes is agility movements, per- performance (37–39). As a result,
formed by athletes to evade and pur- there is an increasing need to estab-
sue opponents during sporting lish training drills that effectively
competition (35). Examination of integrate perception-action coupling
performance times during agility pro- to enhance decision making and agil-
tocols (6,30,31) suggests when com- ity performance.
bining perception and action during
agility, the task itself not only becomes
WHAT IS DECISION MAKING?
more sport specific but elite athletes
Decision making is the ability to rap-
have the ability to produce a faster
idly and accurately identify task-
performance (8,21). Previous research
relevant cues from a variety of stimuli
investigating differences between elite
within the environment, process the
and novice athletes during agility have
incoming information, and select the
primarily attributed these differences
appropriate response (37,38). Often
to an improved ability to identify
referred to as “reading the play,” deci-
task-relevant cues to produce an accu-
sion making involves the integration
rate and rapid motor response
of internal and external feedback
(2,8,29,42,45). From this body of
between the organism (the athlete),
research, athletes have been classified
the task, and the environment, which
into one of the two groups; fast thinkers
assists in enabling movement adapta-
with slow movement, or slow thinkers
tion to occur in response to various
with fast movement (11), in an attempt
stimuli. Depending on the complexity
to categorize and identify the main
of the task and environmental con-
weakness in one’s performance. Despite
straints acting on the athlete, the
this, current training practices have pre-
perceptual-cognitive demand will
dominantly focused on the development
vary. Specifically, as agility occurs in
of physical qualities, technique (12,44)
a dynamic fast-paced environment
and strength (15,16), to overcome limi-
there are various organismic, task,
tations in perceptual-cognitive qualities.
and environmental constraints, which
However, this only addresses half of the
equation to optimize an athlete’s agility
KEY WORDS:
performance. It is well established that
an athlete’s ability to identify task-
relevant cues to produce an accurate
and rapid motor response (2,8,42,45)
agility; decision making; cognitive
training; movement
development; perception-action cou-
pling; dynamical systems
is a prerequisite for a faster agility
1
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
 Cognitive Training for Agility
have the potential to influence an ath-
lete’s agility performance (Figure 1).
ORGANISMIC CONSTRAINTS
Organismic constraints refer to indi-
vidual characteristics of the athlete
and how these affect movement out-
put. Although all organismic con-
straints have the potential to effect
how an athlete executes an agility
movement, current research has pre-
dominantly focused on investigating
physical, technical, and perceptual-
cognitive qualities to identify the
underlying mechanisms that contrib-
ute to agility and highlight the inte-
grated nature of these qualities to
achieve a faster performance.
PHYSICAL QUALITIES
Physical qualities refer to an athlete’s
anthropometrics and general motor
abilities, which can influence the exe-
cution of an agility movement. Agility
is underpinned by multiple strength
components as a result of the unique
demands associated with braking
(eccentric strength and stretch-
shortening cycle ability of the mus-
cle), adopting the appropriate body
position during plant phase (isomet-
ric strength), and reaccelerating
in the new direction (concentric
and dynamic strength) (34,38). Pre-
vious research has observed weak
Figure 1. Specific organismic, task, and environmental constraints influencing an individual athlete’s agility performance.
2 VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2017
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
correlations between various strength
qualities and agility performance
(3,41), indicating that the decreased
number and degree of directional
changes observed in agility tests
reduce the amount of muscular
involvement (3). To address this limi-
tation, Spiteri et al. (2015) developed
a multidirectional agility test compris-
ing 2 directional changes. Despite
observing no relationship between
strength and agility, athletes who pro-
duce a faster agility performance pos-
sessed greater lean body mass and
lower total body mass (38). Increasing
lean mass is achieved through strength
training subsequently increasing the
muscle cross-sectional area and hyper-
trophy (5). These findings indicate
while strength may not share a strong
relationship with overall agility perfor-
mance, a greater strength capacity is
required to execute the movement,
and assists with “over-coming” non-
modifiable characteristics (anthropo-
metrics), to positively influencing
performance.
TECHNICAL QUALITIES
Technical qualities refer to an athlete’s
ability to sequence appropriate muscle
actions, adopt an appropriate body posi-
tion, and systemically coordinate force
and impulse to produce a fast agility
performance. Recently, both force and
impulse production have been identified
as critical factors to detect differences in
agility performance, with a greater appli-
cation of force and impulse (37), greater
rate of force development (39), and
shorter ground contact times (12,38)
observed in faster performances. Fur-
thermore, these authors also established
that a clear relationship exists between
lower-body strength, propulsive force,
and impulse application increasing reac-
celeration out of agility movements (40).
These findings demonstrate that
although a clear relationship between
strength and agility is not observed, an
athlete’s ability to use their strength in
a complex dynamic movement is critical
to coordinate force and impulse applica-
tion. This is further evident when inves-
tigating kinematics during agility
maneuvers. Athletes with greater
lower-body strength have the capacity
to execute the directional change with
greater knee and spine flexion (12,37),
allowing athletes to adopt a lower-
body position to better direct force
application improving propulsive ability.
PERCEPTUAL-COGNITIVE
QUALITIES
Perceptual constraints refer to an ath-
lete’s ability to control their gaze and
identify task-relevant cues within the sur-
rounding environment, whereas cogni-
tive constraints refer to an athlete’s
 ability to use their perceptual ability to
identify familiar patterns of play and op-
ponent’s movements (6). Cognitive con-
strains are therefore influenced by an
athlete’s prior knowledge of the game,
level of concentration, and playing expe-
rience. When considering the dynamic
control of a task like agility, there is a clear
integration between higher perceptual-
cognitive function and the athlete’s tech-
nical and physical qualities to modulate
motor behavior in response to the sur-
rounding environment. Specifically, fast-
er performers have demonstrated
a greater ability to anticipate opponent’s
movements (18), detect kinematic cues
from an opponent’s proximal body seg-
ments (1), demonstrate more permanent
search rates (21,27), and can recognize
and recall game situations (21,27), mak-
ing accurate and efficient sport-specific
decisions. Producing a faster initial
response to the stimulus enables
athletes to prepare and adjust their
movement in response through preacti-
vation of the muscles (22,39), increasing
the rate of force development and mus-
cular stiffness, resulting in a faster agility
performance (19). Despite these findings,
it is currently unknown what visual cues
and search strategies athletes use to
achieve a faster agility performance.
TASK CONSTRAINTS
Task constraints vary across numerous
sports due to the aim and rules of the
activity. Simply put, they influence the
control of movement and the effective-
ness of movement outcomes. These
constraints include the number of play-
ers, speed of the movement, object
manipulation, and presentation of the
stimulus. Typically in sporting environ-
ments, movement execution needs to
occur rapidly. Although this is directly
influenced by an athlete’s organismic
constraints, the inability to transfer agil-
ity performance from training to game
environments is in part due to a lack of
replicating game speed (6). Studies have
indicated when athletes approach the
stimulus at a faster velocity; the stimulus
is presented closer to the point of move-
ment execution; or there is a reduced
time to respond to successive stimuli,
a slower decision-making time is
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
observed (24,37,38). Failing to replicate
the required movement speed and time
constraints limits the successful transfer
to game environments, as athletes may
not be able to adequately adjust move-
ment output at the required game
speed. In addition, many sports often
require directional changes to occur
while simultaneously manipulating
equipment. Elite athletes have been
found to produce a faster performance,
by successfully adjusting their move-
ment output to account for the task
constraints (36,43). However, this has
only been investigated during a change
of direction task under closed pre-
planned conditions. It can be assumed
that manipulating equipment (e.g.,
bouncing a basketball) during agility
will increase the cognitive demand
required and therefore increase the con-
straints placed on the athlete.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Environmental constraints refer to the
environment in which the sport is
played; specifically how the type of
stimulus, external distractions, and play-
ing surface influence movement output.
Several studies have assessed cognitive
function in agility tests by the inclusion
of an external sensory stimulus. Stimu-
lus specificity and presentation is cru-
cial, as anticipatory and perceptual
expertise appear to be dependent on
the type of stimulus used (32). Reacting
to a stimulus requires processing based
on retrieval of information from stored
memory; therefore, greater similarity
between the stimulus and sporting envi-
ronment should decrease response time
(10). External distractions including the
number of players and atmosphere of
the crowd can also impact an athlete’s
ability to identify relevant cues during
a game. Compared to tennis, basketball
and football, have large numbers of ath-
letes on the field and greater crowd
engagement, can increase an athlete’s
arousal and anxiety (14). According to
the inverted-U principle, an athlete will
miss relevant stimuli if they experience
a low or high state of arousal (14). This
will negatively affect an athlete’s ability
to identify relevant stimuli resulting in
a slower decision-making time and
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
agility performance. Therefore, manip-
ulating environmental constraints that
mirror game situations is critical to
improve movement output and the abil-
ity to identify task-relevant cues.
LIMITATIONS IN CURRENT
DECISION-MAKING TRAINING
Current training practices to improve
decision-making ability typically
occur in sterile laboratory conditions,
with confounding factors such as task
and environmental constraints being
held constant. Various studies have
investigated visual search strategies
and the influence of knowledge
(1,9,17,28), prior experience (21,25),
and practice (7,27) on decision making
from a testing and training perspec-
tive. Findings from this research have
limited transfer to sporting environ-
ments as they used standardized or
simulated conditions that do not elicit
true behaviors that occur during game
scenarios (23,33). As the transfer of
performance into game environments
is a key criterion in any training pro-
gram (41), true improvements in agil-
ity performance will not occur unless
coaches develop an athlete’s ability to
identify relevant stimuli and learn to
adapt movement in response to vary-
ing constraints. Athletes who can rec-
ognize and recall a familiar situation
and associate that with a familiar
action will typically produce a faster
decision-making time (20). From an
agility perspective, if an athlete could
recall familiar movement solutions to
familiar task and environmental con-
straints, agility performance should
improve during competition (e.g.,
improved retention and transfer).
Despite this, a majority of agility train-
ing occurs during preplanned drills,
limiting athletes’ exposure to adjust
their movement strategy to reach the
desired goal. This lack of perception-
action coupling in current training
environments is why movement
breakdown and injury occur during
competition and may explain why
athletes cannot replicate the same
movement kinematics in competition
as then they do in a closed training
environment.
3
 Cognitive Training for Agility
PERCEPTION-ACTION COUPLING
AND AGILITY PERFORMANCE
In any given situation, an athlete will be
faced with a range of stimuli and move-
ment choices that are directly depen-
dent on how they perceive sensory
information from their environment.
During agility, perceptual information
is gathered from external and internal
sources, which is used to direct subse-
quent movement output. This cyclical
relationship between perception and
action is termed perception-action or
information-movement coupling, and is
typically enhanced when there is an
inherent link between the stimulus and
movement response (4,6). From a practi-
cal perspective, this highlights the need
to create training environments that
expose athletes to context-specific stim-
uli, enabling them to explore the multiple
combinations for a given situation.
DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE
“ACTION” TO TRAIN
From a movement development per-
spective, research has suggested a lower
center of gravity, forward lean of torso
and shoulders, lateral lean during direc-
tional changes, and reduced knee flex-
ion would be advantageous for a faster
agility performance (13,32). Agility is
a context-specific movement where
athletes are required to match the most
appropriate movement solution to
a movement problem. As a result,
movement execution during a game
may not reflect what research has
described as “optimal” agility technique.
Thus, training should not always focus
on movement perfection, rather the
capability of an athlete to decelerate,
adjust their body position, and reaccel-
erate within their own physical and
technical constraints and secondly,
the ability to successfully control
and coordinate their movement re-
sponses to changing task and envi-
ronmental constraints.
When the aim of a training session is to
develop movement for agility, it is still
important to manipulate practice condi-
tions to replicate the ever-changing
nature of sport (Table). Simply put, ath-
letes are often required to perform
4 VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2017
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
a variety of directional changes (e.g.,
backward pedaling, side-shuffling, and
forward running) in close succession to
evade or pursue opponents. These direc-
tional changes vary in their technical and
physical demands (38), requiring athletes
to constantly adapt and change their
movement strategy to produce a fast per-
formance. Exposing athletes to this type
of movement variability can be achieved
by implementing random practice con-
ditions. Random practice refers to a prac-
tice sequence where individual skills or
drills are executed in a random order
during the session (46). For example, per-
forming a 1808 directional change fol-
lowed by a lateral shuffle requires
athletes to modify their biomechanics
to execute the movement efficiently.
Varying the order of repetition allows
athletes to engage and explore the de-
grees of freedom of each directional
change to develop a coordinated and
adaptive movement output (46). Essen-
tially, although these types of changes to
the typical agility practice scenario may
make the session itself appear “messier,”
the result will be an athlete who displays
more masterful movement solutions
under a wider diversity of motor prob-
lems in sport. To direct athletes’ engage-
ment with the movement, implementing
a whole-part-whole practice methodol-
ogy, that is, breaking down the direc-
tional change into deceleration and
re-acceleration phases, can direct ath-
letes’ attention to individual components
of the movement before piecing the
movement together and executing the
whole skill (14). Speed and distance
available to execute the movement can
also be manipulated to reflect the con-
straints of the sport. This will alter the
physical and technical requirements of
each directional change requiring ath-
letes to further adjust and manipulate
movement output.
LINKING ACTION WITH
PERCEPTION: DEVELOPMENT OF
A PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK
To maximize the transfer of agility per-
formance from training to sport, ath-
letes need to be able to recognize
relevant stimuli, assess the situation,
and formulate a controlled movement
response that is flexible and adaptive
to a changing environment. Progressing
from a closed training environment and
introducing a nonspecific stimulus
(light, voice commands) creates a “con-
trolled reactive” environment and trains
an athlete’s ability to recognize and react
to a stimulus (Table). This provides ath-
letes with a goal-directed search strat-
egy, requiring basic information
processing to identify the stimulus and
react accordingly. Although similar
practice conditions can be implemented
as the closed environment, variability
within the training session will
predominantly be directed by the
stimulus. For example, allocating a differ-
ent directional change to a colored cone,
and verbally cueing which color cone to
move to, requires the athlete to visually
identify the correct cone and execute
the appropriate movement response.
This introduces basic perception-action
coupling (6,23) requiring athletes to exe-
cute a predetermined movement in
response to the correct stimulus. Imple-
menting a time constraint, whereby ath-
letes must react and respond urgently to
the command, often a requirement dur-
ing competition, can further alter this
drill. Additional modifications to the
practice environment can be achieved
by introducing temporal and spatial var-
iability. Temporal variability refers to the
timing variance of a signal, whereas spa-
tial variability refers to the various direc-
tions from which the stimulus can
originate. For example, increasing and
decreasing the length of time between
cueing the stimulus and changing the
location of the colored cones after sev-
eral repetitions changes the temporal
and spatial locating of the stimulus,
ensuring athletes do not anticipate or
become complacent during the drill.
Allowing athletes to explore the most
appropriate agility movement to execute
in response to a given task or environ-
mental constraint during training reflects
the dynamic interaction between the
movement, an athlete’s perception, and
the environment. This enables athletes to
explore the biomechanical and percep-
tual degrees of freedom for a particular
agility movement based on a variety of
 Table
Development of agility performance progressing from movement-orientated (basic) to perception-action coupling
(advanced) training using a structured practical framework
Training aim Movement competency and identification Create a “controlled reactive setting”: Allow athletes to explore movement
of limitations in physical and technical training ability to recognize and respond solutions in response to a movement
capacity to a stimulus (reaction) problem

Environment
Stimulus type No stimulus
Practice Random practice (order of drill
conditions repetition)
Part-to-whole practice
Manipulate the environment
(distance of movement execution)
Manipulate the task (speed of
movement execution)
Feedback and Extrinsic feedback (coach or
cueing trainer)
KR (outcome of the movement)
Cueing: external focus (movement
cues)
Example drill Star drill: emphasis deceleration
progression body control—“stick and hold” on
deceleration
One repetition forward running
One repetition backward pedaling
One repetition 458 forward running
One repetition lateral shuffle
One repetition 458 backward pedaling
Introduce nonspecific stimulus Sport-specific/context-specific
(light, whistle, voice commands, stimulus (another team mate)
and colored cones) Responding to movement of an
object used in the game
Random practice Random practice
Temporal variability (timing of the Temporal and spatial variability
stimulus changes) (timing and location of the
Alter the type of stimulus stimulus)
Time constraints Vary environmental and task
constraints
Extrinsic feedback (start to decrease) Intrinsic feedback
Intrinsic feedback (start to increase) KR
KR KP
KP (quality of the movement) Cueing: external focus (movement
Cueing: external focus (movement and perceptual cues)
cues)
Reactive star drill: emphasis Man-on-man drill (space restricted):
deceleration body control—“stick athlete must perform a variety of
and hold” on reactive deceleration directional changes to bypass a
Forward running (blue cone) defensive opponent and reach the
Backward pedaling (red cone) finish line
Lateral shuffle (orange cone)
458 backward pedaling (green
cone)

*Can implement a time constraint,

size of the drill, add an object (e.g.,
basketball), or increase the number
*Can manipulate the size of this *Randomly alternate movement by of defensive or offensive opponents
drill cueing cone color

KP 5 knowledge of performance; KR 5 knowledge of results.

task and environment constraints to
facilitate the development of a coordi-
nated and controlled movement output.
This can be achieved during training by
identifying a perceptual-cognitive skill to
be trained and manipulating a task and/
or environmental constraint to train the
perceptual-cognitive skill (Figure 2). For
example, athletes are often required to
identify relevant kinematic cues from
an opponent to determine subsequent
movement direction. Using a man-on-
man drill (Table) requires athletes to
identify relevant kinematic cues from
a defensive opponent (task constraint)
and perform multiple directional
changes within a confined space (envi-
ronmental constraint) to bypass the

5
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Cognitive Training for Agility
Figure 2. Practical model to develop an effective training environment for agility to aid movement development and exploration in
response to changing task and/or environmental constraints.
opponent and reach the finish line. Im-
plementing a time restriction required to
reach the finish line, increasing the num-
ber of defensive opponents, or perform-
ing directional changes with equipment
used in the sport adds additional task and
environmental constraints increasing the
complexity and cognitive demand of the
drill. During training, it may be necessary
to use directional instructions to help
guide athlete’s attention to the
perceptual-cognitive skill and place fur-
ther restrictions on the drill. This can be
achieved by implementing the following:
 If-Then Rule: Assists to develop pat-
tern recognition and an athlete’s abil-
ity to recall and transfer movement
solutions from training to games.
For example, in a man-on-man drill,
rules including “if the defensive player
moves towards you stepping forward
with their right leg, then change direc-
tion to your left,” allows athletes to
identify when their opponent will be
at a disadvantage and rapidly adjust
their movement strategy by changing
direction to the left. This rule empha-
sizes basic perception-action cou-
pling, instructing athletes to focus
on specific kinematic cues from their
opposition and provides a movement
solution to a perceived movement
problem.
 Option Generation: Refers to the devel-
opment of different cognitive choices
for the same situation. For example, in
a man-on-man drill, instead of always
changing direction to the left when
the defensive opponent steps forward
with their right leg, athletes are in-
structed to perform a different direc-
tional change for the same situation.
This allows athletes to explore the
most appropriate movement output
for a given situation. Initially, verbal
instruction of specific kinematic cues
6 VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2017
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
to focus on should be provided by the
coach, to reduce the number of op-
tions generated, enabling faster
choices to be made throughout
the drill.
MAXIMIZING AGILITY TRAINING:
THE ROLE OF FEEDBACK AND
CUEING
Verbal cues, instruction, and feed-
back are essential coaching tools im-
plemented before, during, and after
the performance of a skill to direct
athlete’s attention to certain compo-
nents of the movement to improve
performance. Feedback is obtained
throughout the movement via 2 pri-
mary sources, intrinsic and extrinsic
sensory information. Intrinsic feed-
back describes sensory information
sourced from inside and outside
(proprioception, vision, audition,
and smell) the body, whereas extrin-
sic feedback refers to information
provided to the athlete via an outside
source (e.g., coach) (14). Knowledge
of results (KR) and knowledge of
performance (KP) are 2 forms of
extrinsic feedback relating to the out-
come and quality of the movement,
respectively.
When a learner is at the initial stage of
movement development for agility per-
formance, it is best to increase KR and
KP directing an athlete’s attention to er-
rors within the movement. As the athlete
learns to adjust, coordinate, and adapt
movement, intrinsic feedback becomes
the predominant information source.
Although extrinsic feedback typically re-
duces as the learning process continues, it
is still important to provide movement
and perceptual cues to guide athlete’s
attention throughout the movement.
Using external cues during agility such
as “accelerate away from the opponent
as quick as possible” or “push off the
ground as hard as possible” has been
shown to increase agility performance
by creating an external focus of attention
allowing motor behavior to occur auto-
matically (26). Although it is currently
unknown as to what specific visual cues
and search strategies faster performers
use when changing direction, an external
focus of attention can still be imple-
mented to guide athlete’s attention to rel-
evant perceptual-cognitive cues.
Research has indicated athletes who
focus on proximal kinematic cues (trunk
and hips) produce a faster decision-
making time compared with those who
focus on distal kinematic cues (arms and
legs) (1). Implicitly directing an athlete’s
attention to a specific cue during the drill
(i.e., hips), which can be achieved by plac-
ing a colored belt to the opponent’s body
or utilizing short cuing words such as
“hips” before or during the drill, instructs
athletes where to fixate throughout the
drill, narrowing their attentional-focus.
CONCLUSION
Implementing drills that incorporate
task and/or environmental con-
straints replicates the ever-changing
dynamic nature of sport, allowing
athletes to explore and adapt move-
ment output in response to situations
they will typically encounter during
sport. Furthermore, incorporating
perception-action coupling, by intro-
ducing drills that develop decision
making and movement execution
simultaneously, strengthens the rep-
resentation between the stimulus and
appropriate movement response re-
sulting in a faster decision and move-
ment execution for a given situation.
Using these strategies allows strength
and conditioning coaches the oppor-
tunity to create a unique training
 environment that maximizes the 2. Bencke J and Zebis MK. The influence of
transfer of faster agility performances gender on neuromuscular pre-activity
during side-cutting. J Electromyo Kinesiol
from training to competition.
21: 371–375, 2011.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: 3. Castillo-Rodrı́guez A, Fernández-Garcı́a
The authors report no conflicts of interest JC, Chinchilla-Minguet JL, and Carnero EÁ.
and no source of funding. Relationship between muscular strength
and sprints with changes of direction.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 725–732, 2012.
Tania Spiteri is  M, Jovanovi
4. Coh c-Golubovi c D, and Brati
c training effects on change-of-direction
a Lecturer in the M. Motor learning in sport. Phys Ed Sport
School of Health 2: 45–59, 2004.
Science (Exercise 5. Cormie P, McGuigan MR, and Newton RU.
and Sport Science) Adaptations in athletic performance after
ballistic power versus strength training.
at the University
Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 1582–1598,
of Notre Dame
2010.
Fremantle.
6. Davids K, Renshaw I, and Glazier P.
Movement models from sports reveal
fundamental insights into coordination
processes. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 33: 36–
Fleur McIntyre
42, 2005.
is an Associate
Professor and 7. Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the
modifiability of body and mind: Toward
Course Coordi-
a science of the structure and acquisition of
nator of Exercise
expert and elite performance. Int J Sport
and Sport Science Psychol 38, 2007.
at the University
8. Farrow D and Abernethy B. Can
of Notre Dame
anticipatory skills be learned through
Fremantle. implicit video based perceptual training?
J Sport Sci 20: 471–485, 2002.
9. Farrow D, Rendell M, and Gorman A.
Christina Enhancing the reality of a visual
Specos is the simulation: Is depth information
Associate Direc- important. Final Rep Aust Inst Sport 6:
tor of Sports Per- 31–35, 2006.
formance at
10. Gabbett TJ, Carius J, and Mulvey M. Does
Purdue improved decision-making ability reduce
University. the physiological demands of game-
based activities in field sport athletes?
J Strength Cond Res 22: 2027–2035,
2008.
Shawn Myszka 11. Gabbett TJ, Kelly JN, and Sheppard JM.
Speed, change of direction speed, and
is the Pro Perfor-
reactive agility of rugby league players.
mance Director
J Strength Cond Res 22: 174–181, 2008.
and Content
12. Green BS, Blake C, and Caulfield BM. A
Developer for
comparison of cutting technique
Movement
performance in rugby union players.
Mastery. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2668–2680,
2011.
13. Hewit JK, Cronin JB, and Hume PA.
Kinematic factors affecting fast and slow
straight and change-of-direction
acceleration times. J Strength Cond Res
27: 69–75, 2013.
REFERENCES
1. Aglioti SM, Cesari P, Romani M, and Urgesi 14. Janelle CM. Anxiety, arousal and visual
C. Action anticipation and motor resonance attention: A mechanistic account of
in elite basketball players. Nat Neurosci 11: performance variability. J Sports Sci 20:
1109–1116, 2008. 237–251, 2002.
7
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
15. Jullien H, Bisch C, Largouet N, Manouvrier
C, Carling CJ, and Amiard V. Does a short
period of lower limb strength training
improve performance in field-based tests of
running and agility in young professional
soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
404–411, 2008.
16. Keiner M, Sander A, Wirth K, and
Schmidtbleicher D. Long term strength
sprint performance. J Strength Cond Res
28: 223–231, 2013.
17. Lee MJ, Lloyd DG, Lay BS, Bourke PD, and
Alderson JA. Effects of different visual
stimuli on postures and knee moments
during sidestepping. Med Sci Sport Exerc
45: 1740–1748, 2013.
18. Lockie RG, Jeffriess MD, McGann TS,
Callaghan SJ, and Schultz AB. Planned
and reactive agility performance in
semiprofessional and amateur basketball
players. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 9: 766–
771, 2014.
19. López-Segovia M, Marques M, van den
Tillaar R, and González-Badillo J.
Relationships between vertical jump and
full squat power outputs with sprint times in
U21 soccer players. J Hum Kinet 30: 135–
144, 2011.
20. Macquet AC. Recognition within the
decision-making process: A case study of
expert volleyball players. J Appl Sport
Psychol 21: 64–79, 2009.
21. Mann DTY, Williams AM, Ward P, and
Janelle CM. Perceptual-cognitive expertise
in sport: A meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc
Psychol 29: 457–478, 2007.
22. McBride JM, McCaulley GO, and Cormie
P. Influence of preactivity and eccentric
muscle activity on concentric performance
during vertical jumping. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 750–757, 2008.
23. McGarry T, Anderson DI, Wallace SA,
Hughes MD, and Franks IM. Sport
competition as a dynamical self-organizing
system. J Sport Sci 20: 771–781, 2002.
24. McLean SG, Lipfert SW, and van den
Bogert AJ. Effect of gender and defensive
opponent on the biomechanics of sidestep
cutting. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 1008–
1016, 2004.
25. Nunez FJ, Ona A, Raya A, and Bilbao A.
Differences between expert and novice
soccer players when using movement
precues to shoot a penalty kick. Percept
Mot Skills 108: 139–148, 2009.
26. Porter JM, Nolan RP, Ostrowski EJ, and
Wulf G. Directing attention externally
enhances agility performance: A qualitative
and quantitative analysis of the efficacy of
 Cognitive Training for Agility
using verbal instructions to focus attention.
Front Psychol 1: 216–221, 2010.
27. Rendell MA, Farrow D, Masters R, and
Plummer N. Implicit practice for technique
adaptation in expert performers. Int J
Sports Sci Coach 6: 553–566, 2011.
28. Roca A, Ford PR, McRobert AP, and Williams
AM. Identifying the processes underpinning
anticipation and decision-making in a dynamic
time-constrained task. Cog Proces 12: 301–
310, 2011.
29. Savelsbergh GJP, Williams AM, Van Der
Kamp J, and Ward P. Visual search,
anticipation and expertise in soccer
goalkeepers. J Sport Sci 20: 279–287,
2002.
30. Serpell BG, Ford M, and Young WB. The
development of a new test of agility for
rugby league. J Strength Cond Res 24:
3270–3277, 2009.
31. Serpell BG, Young WB, and Ford M. Are
the preceptual and decision-making
components of agility trainable? A
preliminary investigation. J Strength Cond
Res 25: 1240–1248, 2011.
32. Sheppard JM and Young WB. Agility
literature review: Classifications, training
and testing. J Sports Sci 24: 919–932,
2006.
33. Sheppard JM, Young WB, Doyle TL,
Sheppard TA, and Newton RU. An
evaluation of a new test of reactive agility
and its relationship to sprint speed and
8 VOLUME 0 | NUMBER 0 | MONTH 2017
Copyright ª National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
change of direction speed. J Sci Med Sport
9: 342–349, 2006.
34. Spiteri T, Cochrane JL, Hart NH, Haff GG,
and Nimphius S. Effect of strength on plant
foot kinetics and kinematics during
a change of direction task. Eur J Sport Sci
13: 646–652, 2013.
35. Spiteri T, Cochrane JL, and Nimphius S.
Human stimulus reliability during
a reactive offensive and defensive agility
protocol. J Aus Strength Cond 20: 20–
27, 2012.
36. Spiteri T and Hart NH. Ball inclusion
into the AFL agility test can improve
change of direction performance.
J Aus Strength Cond (Suppl 1): 55–62,
2014.
37. Spiteri T, Hart NH, and Nimphius S.
Offensive and defensive agility: A sex
comparison of lower body kinematics and
ground reaction forces. J Appl Biomech
30: 514–520, 2014.
38. Spiteri T, Newton RU, Binetti M, Hart NH,
Sheppard JM, and Nimphius S. Mechanical
determinants of faster change of direction
and agility performance in female
basketball athletes. J Strength Cond Res
29: 2205–2214, 2015.
39. Spiteri T, Newton RU, and Nimphius S.
Neuromuscular strategies contributing to
faster multidirectional agility performance.
J Electromyo Kinesiol 25: 629–636,
2015.
40. Spiteri T and Nimphius S. Relationship
between timing variables and plant foot
kinetics during change of direction
movements. J Aus Strength Cond (Suppl
1): 103–109, 2012.
41. Spiteri T, Nimphius S, Specos C, Hart NH,
Sheppard J, and Newton R. The
contribution of strength characteristics to
change of direction and agility in female
basketball athletes. J Strength Cond Res
28: 2415–2423, 2014.
42. Vaeynes R, Lenoir M, Williams AM, and
Philippaerts RM. Mechanisms
underpinning successful decision making
in skilled youth soccer Players: An analysis
of visual search behaviours. J Mot Behav
39: 395–408, 2007.
43. Veale JP, Pearce AJ, and Carlson JS.
Reliability and validity of a reactive agility
test for Australian football. Int J Sports
Physiol Perf 5: 239–248, 2010.
44. Wheeler KW and Sayers MG. Modification
of agility running technique in reaction to
a defender in rugby union. J Sport Sci Med
9: 445–451, 2010.
45. Wulf G, Chiviacowsky S, Schiller E, and
Ávila LTG. Frequent external focus
feedback enhances motor learning. Front
Psychol 1: 190–198, 2010.
46. Wulf G, Shea C, and Lewthwaite R. Motor
skill learning and performance: A review of
influential factors. Med Ed 44: 75–84,
2010.