The Need and Benefit of Augmented Feedback

on Service Speed in Tennis

KIERAN ANDREW MORAN, COLM MURPHY, and BRENDAN MARSHALL
School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Dublin, IRELAND

ABSTRACT
MORAN, K. A., C. MURPHY, and B. MARSHALL. The Need and Benefit of Augmented Feedback on Service Speed in Tennis. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 754–760, 2012. Purpose: Accurate knowledge of results (KR), in the form of service speed, is
important in learning to serve faster. The aim was to determine whether players could accurately judge if their serve was faster or slower
than their preceding serve (experiment 1) and if providing them with accurate augmented KR feedback on service speed using a speed
gun could enhance learning after training (experiment 2). Methods: In experiment 1, 11 high-level national junior players served 10 serves
to a target area and were asked to judge whether the serve was faster/slower that the preceding serve. In experiment 2, 12 high-level
national junior players, divided into two groups, trained to improve their service speed for 12 wk (three sessions per week). During the
first 6 wk (90 maximum-effort serves/session), they received either augmented (group 1) or no augmented (group 2) KR feedback.
During the following 6 wk, participants did not complete the 90 serves per session and received no augmented KR feedback (retention
test). Results: In experiment 1, players could not correctly determine whether serves were faster/slower than the preceding serve. In
experiment 2, both groups significantly enhanced their service speed after the initial 6 wk of service training, but the enhancement was
significantly greater (P = 0.01) in the augmented versus no augmented KR feedback group (0.84 T 0.38 vs 0.22 T 0.04 mIsj1). These
enhancements were still evident during the retention test (P = 0.01). Conclusions: Players cannot accurately judge service speed, and by
providing this information in the form of augmented feedback, a player can enhance the process of learning to serve faster with training.
Players should therefore use augmented feedback on service speed when training to serve faster. Key Words: MOTOR LEARNING,
SKILL ACQUISITION, SPORT, KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS

M
otor learning involves the integration of motor distinguishing between them, we feel this is imprecise (21)
control processes through repeated trials of a mo- and therefore can act to inhibit rigorous understanding of the
tor task to guide the system toward identifying nuances of KR. Within this article, we clearly distinguish
and permanently adopting a more optimal movement tech- between intrinsic KR and augmented KR information, the
nique (2,22,23). For example, if a tennis player aimed to former being KR information detected by the performer (e.g.,
improve his/her service speed, he/she would practice numer- visual determination of ball speed by the performer), whereas
ous serves; when he/she produced faster services, he/she the latter relates to KR provided by a source external to the
would attempt to more permanently use the associated en- performer (e.g., ball speed measured by a speed gun) (21)].
hanced technique. After practice itself, KR is seen by many as the most im-
Feedback provides essential information for the motor portant variable in effective motor learning (21,22). Given
control processes and therefore for the process of learning. that KR is used to rate the effectiveness of a technique and
Feedback can relate to the technique used (knowledge of that there may be only very small variations in the outcome
performance; e.g., the amount of shoulder internal rotation) results for a high-level athlete, it is essential that the KR-
or the outcome goal of the movement (knowledge of results based feedback is accurate and precise (4,7). In addition, for
[KR]; e.g., the speed of service). [Although some authors the majority of practice time in most sports, there is a low
use the term KR to refer interchangeably to outcome infor- ratio of the number of trials where KR feedback is received
mation that can be either (i) intrinsic or (ii) augmented (e.g., from an external source (e.g., from a coach) to the number of
APPLIED SCIENCES

Magill and Wood (15) and Schmidt and Lee [23]) without trials where feedback comes solely from the player them-
selves. Therefore, it is perhaps crucial that either the athlete
is able to accurately determine KR himself or herself or that
Address for correspondence: Kieran Andrew Moran, Ph.D., School of Health
and Human Performance, Faculty of Science and Health, Dublin City Uni- the athlete is provided with a source/technology that can.
versity, Collins Avenue, Dublin, Ireland; E-mail: [email protected]. This is particularly true for those theories of learning that
Submitted for publication February 2011. espouse the importance of action–perception coupling (e.g.,
Accepted for publication August 2011. ecological approach).
0195-9131/12/4404-0754/0 The serve in tennis is commonly considered the most im-
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISEÒ portant stroke in the game because it is a high predictor of
Copyright Ó 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine match success (11,20), with its effectiveness primarily de-
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182376a13 pendent on ball speed (6). Therefore, as indicated above, if

754

Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
an athlete aims to improve his/her service speed, he/she must tasks tend to be produced faster, decreasing the amount of
be able to accurately discern between attempts in service knowledge of performance feedback (a frequency limitation),
speed. At the very least, he/she should be able to judge from thereby potentially increasing the reliance on KR feedback
consecutive attempts that are faster or slower. However, no information.
previous studies that examined this for tennis or for similar An increase in the accuracy and precision of service speed
high-speed striking/projecting actions could be found. assessment could be provided with the use of specialized
The ability to judge ball speed has been reported to be equipment (e.g., a speed gun and visual display). To the best
dependent on optical mechanisms (9) and/or internal models of our knowledge, no previous studies have examined this
of prediction (24). Irrespective of the mechanism, the abil- in relation to tennis service speed or ball projection speed in
ity to gather more visual input information may result in an other similar high-speed actions, with such small variations
enhanced ability to judge speed. More information would be in ball speed between trials. Therefore, the aims of experi-
available for slower ball speeds as more images are avail- ment 2 were as follows:
able during the longer-duration flight phase of the ball (a
1. to determine whether augmented KR feedback, in the
frequency constraint). Therefore, it would be of interest to
form of service speed, resulted in a greater improve-
determine whether the ability to judge whether consecu-
ment in service speed after a 6-wk training period; and
tive serves are faster or slower is dependent on the absolute
2. to determine whether the improvement, if any, was still
ball speed. This could be assessed for consecutive serves by
evident after a further 6-wk retention period during
taking the average of the two serves. Similarly, the ability to
which the augmented KR feedback was removed.
judge whether consecutive serves are faster or slower may
be dependent on the difference in the speed of consecutive It is hypothesized that improvements will be greater
serves (a sensitivity constraint). This would have implica- when augmented KR feedback is provided, because it will
tions whether variability between service speeds was small provide a more accurate source of information (4,7), and
or large, with greater speed differences perhaps being evi- that the improvements will still be evident after a 6-wk re-
dent in the earlier phases of learning. tention period.
Therefore, the aims of experiment 1 were as follows:
1. to determine whether highly trained tennis players could METHODS
judge if a serve was faster or slower than the preceding Experiment 1
serve and
2. to determine whether the ability to judge this was de- Participants. Eleven national-standard junior tennis
pendent on either (i) the difference in the speed of the players, seven males and four females (15.7 T 1.6 yr), who
were free from injury, volunteered for the study. Players
serves or (ii) the average of the two service speeds.
were defined as ‘‘high-level’’ based on fact that they repre-
On the basis of the ability of players from a variety of sented Ireland, had been training between 20 and 26 hIwkj1
sports (e.g., tennis, cricket) to be able to accurately strike fast- as part of the Tennis Ireland national squad for at least 2 yr,
moving balls when they enter their (small) ‘‘hitting zone’’ and had completed in at least six internationally recognized
(13) and that this capacity seems to be better in high-level junior competitions per year for at least 2 yr. Informed con-
players, it is hypothesized that high-level tennis players will sent was obtained from the participants and their parents/
be able to judge if consecutive serves are faster or slower. In guardians, and ethical approval was received from Dublin
addition, it is hypothesized that this ability will be greatest City University.
at lower ball speeds and when the difference between ball Data collection. Testing took place in the indoor Irish
speeds is largest. National Tennis Centre. After their normal squad warm-up,
Irrespective of the outcomes of experiment 1, it is possible players served 15 acceptable serves to the T of the deuce
that the more accurate and precise the KR feedback to players service box. Attempts were deemed acceptable if they were
on their service speed is, the more effectively they may be within a 1.5  1.5-m area of the T in the service box (Fig. 1).
able to identify a better technique and subsequently use it Where a service attempt was not acceptable, it was repeated
APPLIED SCIENCES
more regularly. Previous studies have highlighted the impor- until sufficient serves were completed so that players had 10
tance of accurate KR (4,7). However, these studies are limited opportunities to judge if their serves were faster or slower
in their application to the topic of this article because they than the immediately preceding one. The warm-up consisted
were nonmaximal effort tasks, and the accuracy of the aug- of: 3-min jogging at a self-selected ‘‘slow’’ pace and 2 min
mented KR feedback was, in general, artificially made erro- at a ‘‘fast’’ pace, 8 min of whole-body dynamic stretching,
neous (subjects were misled). Findings from feedback-based 10 min of rallying which progressively increased in inten-
studies using nonmaximal effort tasks may not be wholly sity, and 4-min service practice.
applicable to maximal effort tasks because (i) maximal-effort Service speed was measured using a StalkerPro speed gun
tasks have a much smaller range of techniques that produce (Stalker, Plano, TX) placed 4 m behind the baseline in line
the targeted outcome goal (26,28), thereby potentially requir- with the intended direction of serve. Absolute errors for the
ing more accurate KR feedback, and (ii) maximal-effort speed gun are small (T0.04 mIsj1), and inaccuracies associated

AUGMENTED FEEDBACK AND TENNIS SERVICE SPEED Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 755

Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Participants were ranked in order from 1 to 12 by their
senior coach in terms of his ‘‘perception of how their service
speed could improve during the training period.’’ (No attempt
was made by the coach to indicate the magnitude of this
difference between them.) Subsequently, they were assigned
to either the augmented (participants 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12) or
no augmented KR feedback group. The aim of this alloca-
tion process was to reduce the likelihood that players who
were most likely to improve their serve were not coinci-
dently placed in the same group, thereby potentially skewing
the results. Although not being an aim of the process, two
girls were coincidently assigned to each group. A Mann–
Whitney test indicated no significant difference between
the augmented feedback group and the no feedback group
for preintervention service speed (46.71 T 4.70 vs 45.56 T
3.63 mIsj1, respectively; U = 17.0, P = 0.47).
Data collection. All sessions took place during the par-
ticipants’ usual training times in the indoor National Tennis
Centre. Participants attended one pretest session (to determine
FIGURE 1—Setup for experiment 1. their baseline service speed), 6 wk of training sessions (three
times per week) where they received either augmented or no
with ball movements nonparallel to the speed gun were es- augmented KR feedback, a posttest session, six further weeks
timated to be a maximum of 0.25% service speed. of training sessions (three times per week) where no par-
Data analysis. To determine whether players could judge ticipants received augmented KR feedback, and a retention
if a serve was faster or slower than the preceding serve, a test session (Fig. 2). The purpose of the second training
Wilcoxon signed rank test was used (P G 0.05). The two
inputs were the number of correct differentiations (faster/
slower) out of 10 and the number expected due to chance/
guessing (=5). To determine whether the ability to judge
correctly was dependent on either (i) the difference in the
speed of serves or (ii) the average of the two service speeds,
both measures were correlated with the number of correct
service speed differentiations (faster/slower) using a Spear-
man rank correlation analysis (P G 0.05).
Results. No significant difference was evident between
the number of correctly differentiated serves (4.9 T 1.5) and
the number of serves due to chance (=5) (z = j0.11 P =
0.92). This indicates that the tennis players could not cor-
rectly determine whether consecutive serves were faster or
slower than each other were. The average speed of serve was
46.07 T 4.51 mIsj1, and the average difference between
serves was 1.1 T 0.5 mIsj1. The number of correctly differ-
entiated serves was not correlated with either the difference
in the speed of serves (r = 0.25, P = 0.46) or the average of
the two service speeds (r = j0.03, P = 0.92).
APPLIED SCIENCES

Experiment 2
Participants. Twelve junior national tennis players (11
of whom completed experiment 1) volunteered to participate
in this study (15.9 T 1.7 yr). The additional player was a
male, 14 yr 3 months old. Although he did not complete
experiment 1, he was as aware of the aim of experiment 1 as
those who participated. The same inclusion criteria were
used as experiment 1. Informed consent was obtained from
FIGURE 2—Procedures for experiment 2. Note: training in weeks 1–6
the participants and their parents/guardians, and ethical ap- consisted of 90 directed serves plus general tennis training, while weeks
proval was received from Dublin City University. 7–12 did not include the 90 directed serves.

756 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
period was to determine whether any enhancements in service mented KR feedback group (z = j2.43, P = 0.01; z = j2.49,
speed remained after the augmented feedback was removed. P = 0.01, respectively). The mean T SD enhancements
Each training session required the player to complete for the augmented versus no augmented KR feedback
90 consecutive serves: 15 wide, 15 central and 15 T, on both groups from pretest to posttest were 0.84 T 0.38 versus
the Deuce and Advantage sides of the court. A 1.5-m square 0.22 T 0.04 mIsj1, respectively, and those from pretest to
target was marked in these three areas. Serves were to be hit retention test were 0.89 T 0.41 versus 0.21 T 0.05 mIsj1,
‘‘as hard as possible while landing the serve in the target respectively.
zone.’’ Only serves that landed in the target zone counted
toward the total of 90. No players received any coach feed-
DISCUSSION
back. Feedback to the augmented KR feedback group was
given almost immediately (G2 s) after each serve via a large KR is used to internally rate the effectiveness of the
electronic display. Service speed was measured using a speed movement technique that produced the result, thereby pro-
gun (StalkerPro; Stalker) placed in line with the intended di- viding valuable information to the complex process of mo-
rection of serve (4 m behind the baseline). In addition, to the tor learning which aims to optimize movement technique
dedicated 90 serves, players did complete an unspecified, (2,22,23). In many movement tasks, accurate KR can easily
but smaller number of serves related to match practice drills be determined by the performer, e.g., shooting in basketball
(e.g., serve and volley) where no feedback was provided. (a score or no score, or even the extent of the miss). However,
During the second 6-wk training (retention) period, players the present study (experiment 1) showed that highly trained
did not complete the 90 dedicated serves but did undertake tennis players could not correctly differentiate (faster/slower)
serves related to match practice as previously undertaken in between the speeds of consecutive maximum-effort serves,
the first 6 wk. thereby potentially severely limiting their ability to effectively
Data analysis. All service speed tests were determined optimize their service technique. The challenge of accessing
as the average of 15 serves to the 1.5-m square target area of and using accurate and relevant service speed information is
the Deuce service box. A Friedman test was undertaken for in fact likely to be even greater than indicated by the current
each group to determine whether the results were dependent test method. For players to be able to use service speed in-
on the test day (pretest, posttest, retention test), where a formation as a driver to optimizing service technique, they
difference was evident follow-up pairwise comparisons were would probably have to be able to (i) differentiate (faster/
conducted using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Where both slower) between nonconsecutive serves, not simply conse-
groups (augmented and no augmented KR feedback) exhi- cutive serves, and (ii) possibly determine the relative mag-
bited a significant training effect, a subsequent Mann–Whitney nitude of the difference. No studies could be found that
test was used to determine whether there was a significant specifically examined the ability of high-level athletes to
difference between the two groups in the magnitude of rate the speed of projection of a ball they threw or struck.
enhancement (P G 0.05). However, Magill (14) suggests that, in performing a novel
movement task as fast as possible, improvements are ini-
tially high because individuals can judge accurately between
RESULTS the speed of movements, but with further increases in speed
Table 1 details the mean T SD service speed on all three and smaller differences between trials, they do not have
test days. For both the augmented and no augmented KR the experience to differentiate accurately between them. This
feedback groups, there was a significant enhancement in results in a reduction or halting of improvements associ-
service speed associated with test day (W2 = 10.17, P = 0.006; ated with an inability to further optimize the movement
W2 = 10.18, P = 0.006, respectively). Follow-up pairwise technique (14). Given the significant prior training and ex-
comparisons revealed that, for both the augmented and no pertise of the participants in the present study, it is unlikely
augmented KR feedback groups, enhancements in service that the inability to differentiate between serves is due to
speed were evident between the pretest results and both the inexperience, suggesting that it is due to the high magni-
tude of service speeds (46.9 T 4.5 mIsj1) and/or the small
APPLIED SCIENCES
posttest (z = j2.20, P = 0.02; z = j2.22, P = 0.02, respec-
tively) and the retention test (z = j2.20, P = 0.02; z = j2.20, differences between consecutive serves (1.1 T 0.5 mIsj1).
P = 0.02, respectively) results. No differences were evi- Although no correlation was found between the ability to
dent between the posttest and the retention test (z = j1.41, accurately differentiate between serves and either of these
P = 0.16; z = j0.37, P = 0.71, respectively). The magnitude measures, it would not be appropriate to conclude that they
of the enhancements from the pretest to both the posttest are not related factors because the range of results was very
and the retention test was significantly larger for the aug- low. Further study is warranted to determine at which speed
and/or at what difference in speeds can players effectively
TABLE 1. Mean T SD service speed (mIsj1) across three test periods. differentiate between.
Pretest Posttest Retention Test The findings of the present study raise an interesting
Augmented KR feedback 46.71 T 4.70 47.69 T 4.70 47.74 T 4.71 question: why could players not differentiate correctly be-
No augmented KR feedback 45.56 T 3.63 45.78 T 3.65 45.77 T 3.67 tween service speeds? Clearly, in serve-receiving a ball of

AUGMENTED FEEDBACK AND TENNIS SERVICE SPEED Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 757

Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the same speed, players do have the ability to very accurately would have limitations because optimization of the
judge when it will enter their (small) ‘‘hitting zone’’ because movement technique would be dependent solely on
they can effectively strike the ball to return it; similar abilities feedback about the technique (e.g., speed of shoulder
are observed in batting in cricket and baseball. Although this rotation) without direct evidence of outcome success
specific topic was not experimentally examined within the (i.e., ball speed).
present study, there are several possibilities worth noting:
In light of the importance of service speed feedback to
1. There is a difference between judging the speed of a the learning process and the inability of tennis players to
ball and predicting when it will be in a player’s hitting judge it, the second experiment within this article examined
zone. Although optic variables (e.g., retinal image size, if augmented feedback could enhance the learning pro-
rate of expansion, tau) may theoretically allow the cess during a 6-wk period. Although there is debate over the
speed of an object to be determined (ecological per- optimal frequency and delay time of feedback (discussed
spective, see Gibson [9]), in fast-moving conditions below), the augmented feedback was provided almost im-
such as tennis or cricket, prior knowledge and inter- mediately (G2 s) after completing each serve by using a
nal models are used to predict where and when the speed gun and large display. The results clearly show that
ball will reach the hitting zone (constructivism perspec- providing accurate and precise knowledge of service speed
tive, see Shepard [24]). This negates the need to di- significantly enhanced the learning process, with a subse-
rectly determine ball speed (13) (for a review, see Zago quent increase in speed in comparison to the control group
et al. [38]). who received no augmented feedback (0.8 T 0.4 vs 0.2 T
2. The server may not be able to judge ball speed because 0.1 mIsj1, respectively). The enhancements in performance
he/she cannot see where the ball is at key points in its associated with the 6 wk of training with augmented feed-
flight path. Even if it was possible to determine high back were still present after a further 6 wk of training
ball speeds using optical variables, the environmental without the augmented feedback (the retention test). This
setup for serving differs from that of receiving a serve. indicates that the new serving techniques were learned, rather
When receiving a serve, the ball is (i) struck in front than just a reflection of the presence of the feedback infor-
of the receiver and subsequently remains in his/her mation (22,23).
field of vision for the duration of its flight, and (ii) The present study is not the first to show that the more
the player’s head does not rotate excessively. In con- accurate the KR feedback, the greater the enhancement in
trast, however, the server may actually (i) lose sight of performance [e.g., Buekers et al. (4), Ford et al. (7), Magill
the ball from very soon after contacting it until he/she and Wood (15), and Reeve et al. (19)]. Ford et al. (7) exam-
can reposition his/her head to ‘‘pick up’’ the flight of ined the effect of providing erroneous visual (video) feed-
the ball again as it travels toward and over the net, back to performers on the height to which a ball they kicked
again where it may be obscured by the net tape, and cleared a bar. Their results showed that even highly skilled
(ii) his/her head rotates quickly and significantly. performers accepted and integrated the erroneous visual
3. There may be a difference in judging the speed of feedback resulting in the subsequent utilization and adoption
objects moving away from the player rather than mov- of erroneous kicking techniques. However, the present study
ing toward them. Because a player would not have to seems to be the first to show this in relation to service speed
form an accurate motor response to a ball he/she served in tennis (or ball projection speed in any sport) where effort
away from him/her, in comparison to intercepting a ball is maximum, ball speed is high, and where such small var-
served to him/her, there would not be the same re- iations in ball speed between attempts are evident. In addition,
quirement to form internal models of the ball’s flight unlike previous studies (4,7) that artificially induced erro-
behavior. Without these models, it may not be possible neous feedback by misleading the participants, the erroneous
to even infer ball speed, even indirectly (38). Overney KR information determined by the players in the current
et al. (17) used a random dot kinematogram to inves- study was simply due to the players’ inability to judge it
tigate the ability of observers to discriminate speed accurately. However, it is unclear if this information was
APPLIED SCIENCES

between two displays of moving dots. They found that used by players as part of the motor learning process in
tennis players were able to more accurately discrimi- attempting to identify a more optimal movement technique.
nate speed than triathletes and nonathletes when the The importance of this article’s findings to the applied
dots were expanding (i.e., mimicking moving toward setting is perhaps further highlighted when recognizing the
the participants) but not when contracting (i.e., mim- nature of the general training environment. The coach clearly
icking moving away from the observer). plays a critical role in providing feedback to a player. Yet, it
4. Proprioceptive signals may dominate. It is possible is not uncommon for the ratio of players to coach to be high,
that tennis players judge the speed of the ball based on limiting the opportunity for an individual player to receive
how they rated the effectiveness of the service tech- feedback from the coach on the speed of his/her serve. In
nique; that is, from proprioceptive information, rather addition, it is unclear if coaches have the ability to accurately
or more so than on visual information. Clearly, this identify which serves are faster or slower than others are,

758 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
given that the players themselves cannot. This, itself, requires information to guide the system toward identifying and
investigating. permanently adopting a more optimal movement technique
Although early work on augmented KR feedback took (2,22,23). However, it is worth noting other popular pos-
the view that feedback should be frequent and immediate sible benefits to augmented KR feedback:
(1,3,25), there has been a ground swell of research that
1. Motivation (2,5). This may be motivation to perform
takes the opposite view, that it should be less frequent and
more maximum-effort attempts, thereby increasing the
delayed (16,27,29,30,34). This is in accordance with the
likelihood of the system identifying a more effective
guidance hypothesis, which holds as a central tenant that
movement technique or increasing the strength of the
KR helps to guide the performer to identify a more optimal
neuromuscular system. Motivation may also increase
movement technique, but that when the augmented KR
the amount of attention paid by the performer to the
feedback is too frequent, especially when given after every
available feedback information (internal and/or ex-
trial, it may cause the learner to rely too much on this in-
ternal), thereby facilitating learning.
formation source (22). The outcome of this overreliance
2. External focus of attention. Focusing on the outcome
would be a failure to attend effectively to processing in-
of the movement (external focus) rather than how it
trinsic feedback, which they must again rely on when the
is produced (internal focus) can enhance learning
augmented feedback is no longer available (12,22,33). How-
(31,32,37) (for a review, see Peh et al. [18]). Interest-
ever, in the present study (experiment 2), augmented KR
ingly, in contrast to the current guidance hypothesis of
feedback provided almost immediately after each trial resul-
learning discussed above, this theory of learning indi-
ted in learning, as evidenced by results from the 6-wk reten-
cates that providing feedback after each trial, as used in
tion test. Support for providing feedback after each trial is
the current study, is more beneficial than providing
evident in other studies that have examined learning of
feedback less frequently (31).
complex tasks (10,35,36). For example, Wulf and Shea (36)
examined the issue of the frequency of feedback in a com-
Limitations. The authors acknowledge the small num-
plex slalom-type movement, which, in common with the
ber of participants in experiment 2 (between-subject design),
tennis serve in the present study, required the significant
which is often a consequence of relatively long-term training
muscular effort to move and accurately coordinate the ac-
studies on highly trained athletes. However, this seems to be
tions of a large number of body segments. They found that
the first study to examine the role of augmented feedback
learning enhanced when augmented feedback was provided
KR in a skilled group of athletes involved in a high-speed
after every trial rather than after every two trials. The con-
striking/throwing–based action.
trast in findings between those who advocate decreased
frequency and increased delay in feedback and those who
advocate increased frequency and immediate feedback may CONCLUSIONS
be due to variation in the complexity of the task they studied Serving speed is extremely important to service ability
(10,35,36). In contrast to complex skills based studies, simple (6), which, in turn, is a high determinant of success in tennis
skills tend to be novel (which can be mastered in as little (11,20). In attempting to optimize service technique, players
as 15 min of practice), to have a single and overly simple need to have access to accurate and precise knowledge of
temporal or spatial task goal, to use feedback that is either service speed (KR). However, where such accurate and pre-
present or not (35), to require only submaximum neuro- cise information is not intrinsically available, as in the tennis
muscular effort, and to incorporate only a short retention serve of high-level players (experiment 1), this information
test period. Such limitations reduce the ecological validity of should be externally provided (augmented feedback) to en-
applying the results to complex tasks (8,35) that dominate hance learning (experiment 2). Specifically, with regard to
the sports environment. In fact, in a review of the issue in high-level tennis players, it is recommended that ball speed be
relation to feedback frequency and delay, Wulf and Shea measured accurately and relayed to the server after each serve.
(35, p. 207) conclude that, ‘‘research on more complex skills Future studies should determine whether players from other
shows that the manipulation of practice variables that re-
APPLIED SCIENCES
sports involving maximum-effort striking and throwing ac-
sult in enhanced learning of simple skills are actually detri- tions (e.g., baseball, cricket, soccer, golf ) are similarly unable
mental to the learning of complex skills.’’ This statement to judge their speed of projection and, if so, whether the use
is perhaps all-the-more pertinent when the conservative of technology that can provide this (augmented) feedback
definition of a complex skill by Wulf and Shea is considered: could enhance the learning process. In addition, it would be
‘‘if they generally cannot be mastered in a single session worth while examining if the ability to judge if consecutive
[and] have several degrees of freedom’’ (35, p. 186). Clearly, serves were faster/slower could be learned, by providing ac-
in highly complex sports skills such as serving in tennis, curate speed of serve information that would act to calibrate
results from simple skills-based studies may not be fully a performer’s intrinsic information.
applicable.
No funding has been received for the present work.
The authors have taken the position in writing this article None of the authors has any links with companies or manu-
that the benefit of augmented KR feedback is in providing facturers who would benefit from the present work.

AUGMENTED FEEDBACK AND TENNIS SERVICE SPEED Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercised 759

Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 There is no conflict of interest for any of the authors. Cahill (Head Coach with Tennis Ireland) for his insights and help
The authors would like to thank Dr. Mark Campbell and with organizing the study.
Dr. Johann Issartel for their insightful reviews of, and recommen- The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement
dations on, this article. The authors would also like to thank Garry by the American College of Sports Medicine.

REFERENCES
1. Adams J. A closed-loop theory of motor learning. J Mot Behav. 20. Roetert P, Groppel J. World Class Tennis Technique. 1st ed. Leeds
1971;3:111–49. (UK): Human Kinetics Publishers; 2001. p. 288.
2. Adams J. Historical review and appraisal of research on the learn- 21. Russell DM, Newell KM. On no-KR tests in motor learning, re-
ing, retention, and transfer of human motor skills. Psychol Bull. tention and transfer. Hum Mov Sci. 2007;26(1):155–73.
1987;101(1):41–74. 22. Salmoni AW, Schmidt RA, Walter CB. Knowledge of results and
3. Bilodeau EA, Bilodeau IM, Schumsky DA. Some effects of in- motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychol Bull.
troducing and withdrawing knowledge of results early and late in 1984;95(3):355–86.
practice. J Exp Psychol. 1959;58:142–4. 23. Schmidt R, Lee T. Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioral
4. Buekers M, Magill R, Hall K. The effect of erroneous knowledge Emphasis. 4th ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics; 2005. p. 544.
of results on skill acquisition when augmented information is re- 24. Shepard RN. Ecological constraints on internal representation:
dundant. Q J Exp Psychol A. 1992;44(1):105–17. resonant kinematics of perceiving, imagining, thinking, and dream-
5. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G. Feedback after good trials enhances ing. Psychol Rev. 1984;91(4):417–47.
learning. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2007;78(2):40–7.
25. Thorndike EL. The law of effect. Am J Psychol. 1927;39:212–22.
6. Elliott B, Fleisig G, Nicholls R, Escamilia R. Technique effects on
upper limb loading in the tennis serve. J Sci Med Sport. 2003;6(1): 26. van Zandwijk JP, Bobbert MF, Munneke M, Pas P. Control of
76–87. maximal and submaximal vertical jumps. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
7. Ford P, Hodges NJ, Williams AM. Examining action effects in the 2000;32(2):477–85.
execution of a skilled soccer kick by using erroneous feedback. 27. Vander Linden DW, Cauraugh JH, Greene TA. The effect of fre-
J Mot Behav. 2007;39(6):481–90. quency of kinetic feedback on learning an isometric force pro-
8. Fowler C, Turvey M. Skill acquisition: an event approach for the duction task in nondisabled subjects. Phys Ther. 1993;73:79–87.
optimum of several variables. In: Stelmach GE, editor. Information 28. Vanrenterghem J, Bobbert MF, Casius LJ, De Clercq D. Is energy
Processing in Motor Control and Learning. New York (NY): expenditure taken into account in human sub-maximal jumping?—
Academic Press; 1978. p. 1–40. A simulation study. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008;18(1):108–15.
9. Gibson J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Hillsdale 29. Weeks DJ, Zelaznik H, Beyak B. An empirical note on reduced
(NJ): Lawrence Erlbraum; 1986. p. 332. frequency of knowledge of results. J Hum Mov Stud. 1993;25:348–58.
10. Guadagnoli MA, Dornier LA, Tandy RD. Optimal length for 30. Winstein CJ, Schmidt RA. Reduced frequency of knowledge of
summary knowledge of results: the influence of task-related ex- results enhances motor skill learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem
perience and complexity. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1996;67:239–48. Cogn. 1990;16(4):677–91.
11. Knudson D. Biomechanical Principles of Tennis Technique. 31. Wulf G, Chiviacowsky S, Schiller E, Avila L. Frequent external-
Vista (CA): Racquet Technical Publishing; 2006. p. 136. focus feedback enhances motor learning. Front Psychol. 2010;
12. Lai Q, Shea CH. The role of reduced frequency of knowledge of 1:1–7.
results during constant practice. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70(1): 32. Wulf G, Prinz W. Directing attention to movement effects en-
33–40. hances learning: a review. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001;8(4):648–60.
13. Land MF, McLeod P. From eye movements to actions: how bats- 33. Wulf G, Schmidt RA. Feedback-induced variability and the
men hit the ball. Nat Neurosci. 2000;3(12):1340–5. learning of generalized motor programs. J Motor Behav. 1994;26:
14. Magill RA. Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applica- 348–61.
tions. 6th ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill; 2001. p. 466.
34. Wulf G, Schmidt RA, Deubel H. Reduced feedback frequency
15. Magill RA, Wood C. Knowledge of results precision as a learning
enhances generalized motor program learning but not parameteriza-
variable in motor skill acquisition. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1986;57:
tion learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1993;19(5):1134–50.
170–3.
16. Maslovat D, Brunke KM, Chua R, Franks IM. Feedback effects 35. Wulf G, Shea DH. Principles derived from the study of simple
on learning a novel bimanual coordination pattern: support for the skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychon Bull Rev.
guidance hypothesis. J Mot Behav. 2009;41(1):45–54. 2002;9(2):185–211.
17. Overney L, Blanke O, Herzog H. Enhanced temporal but not at- 36. Wulf G, Shea CH, Matschiner S. Frequent feedback enhances
tentional processing in expert tennis players. PLoS One. 2008;3(6): complex motor skill learning. J Mor Behav. 1998;30:180–92.
e2380. 37. Wulf G, Su J. An external focus of attention enhances golf shot
18. Peh SY, Chow JY, Davids K. Focus of attention and its impact accuracy in beginners and experts. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2007;78(4):
APPLIED SCIENCES

on movement behaviour. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14(1):70–8. 384–9.

19. Reeve TG, Dornier LA, Weeks DJ. Precision of knowledge of 38. Zago M, McIntyre J, Senot P, Lacquaniti F. Visuo-motor coordi-
results: consideration of the accuracy requirements imposed by the nation and internal models for object interception. Exp Brain Res.
task. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1990;61(3):284–90. 2009;192(4):571–604.

760 Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org

Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.