Effects of speed, agility and quickness training programme on cognitive and physical performance in preadolescent soccer players

Athos Trecroci; Luca Cavaggioni; Alessio Rossi; Andrea Moriondo; Giampiero Merati; Hadi Nobari; Luca Paolo Ardigò; Damiano Formenti

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0277683

. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0277683. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277683

Effects of speed, agility and quickness training programme on cognitive and physical performance in preadolescent soccer players

Athos Trecroci ¹, Luca Cavaggioni ^1,², Alessio Rossi ³, Andrea Moriondo ⁴, Giampiero Merati ^5,⁶, Hadi Nobari ^7,^8,⁹, Luca Paolo Ardigò ^10,^11,^*,^#, Damiano Formenti ^5,^#

Editor: Leonardo de Sousa Fortes¹²

¹Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy

²Department of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases, Obesity Unit and Laboratory of Nutrition and Obesity Research, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano, Milan, Italy

³Department of Computer Science, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

⁴Department of Medicine and Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy

⁵Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy

⁶IRCCS Fondazione don Carlo Gnocchi, Milano, Italy

⁷Department of Exercise Physiology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

⁸Department of Motor Performance, Faculty of Physical Education and Mountain Sports, Transilvania University of Braşov, Braşov, Romania

⁹Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain

¹⁰Department of Teacher Education, NLA University College, Oslo, Norway

¹¹Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, School of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Verona, Verona, Italy

¹²Federal University of Paraiba, BRAZIL

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

^✉

* E-mail: luca.ardigo@univr.it

Contributed equally.

Roles

Athos Trecroci: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Luca Cavaggioni: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Alessio Rossi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Andrea Moriondo: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Giampiero Merati: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Hadi Nobari: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Luca Paolo Ardigò: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Damiano Formenti: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Leonardo de Sousa Fortes: Editor

PMCID: PMC9714860 PMID: 36454889

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of a short-term (4 weeks) non-soccer-specific training programme based on speed, agility and quickness (SAQ) and a soccer-specific training programme based on small-sided games (SSG) on cognitive and physical performance in preadolescent soccer players. Twenty-one participants were randomly assigned to SAQ group (n = 11) or SSG group (n = 10). They were tested pre and post interventions on physical (5 m sprint, 20 m sprint and sprint with turns of 90°) and cognitive (inhibitory control by means of the Flanker task and perceptual speed by means of the visual search task) performances. Although no significant time x group interactions were observed, the main effect of time was significant for cognitive performance and 5 m and 20 m sprint, showing improvements after both SAQ and SSG. These findings highlight that 4 weeks of SAQ training programme induced comparable improvements in cognitive and physical performance with respect to a soccer-specific training programme based on SSG in preadolescent soccer players. Non-sport-specific activities targeting speed, agility and quickness combined with cognitive engagement (i.e., SAQ) should be useful strategies as soccer-specific activities to be included within a soccer training programme for promoting both physical and cognitive domain in preadolescent individuals.

Introduction

Soccer requires an extraordinary balance between physiological performance, motor control and mental and cognitive abilities [1]. While the game is developed in an unpredictable and changing context, players must process several information in a short time under a stressful condition with the aim of anticipating, planning and executing appropriate motor actions [1]. The related underlying mental construct of this aspect is defined as perceptual-cognitive skills, which refer to the players’ abilities of selecting and perceiving information from the environment [2]. In this context, a match requires players able to execute soccer-specific motor actions (such as passing, dribbling and shooting) under high perceptual-cognitive demands [3]. Accordingly, a recent but remarkable body of literature on the cognitive-component skill approach provided evidence that high‐performance level athletes perform better in general cognitive tasks (assessing cognitive functions) compared with low‐performance level athletes [4–7]. These findings suggest that non-sport-specific cognitive skills such as cognitive control may be related to performance, especially in team sports.

The well-recognized importance of cognition for soccer performance can be also found in the concept of agility, defined as “skills and abilities needed to change direction, velocity or mode in response to a stimulus” [8, 9]. As a fundamental determinant of performance in team sports, improving agility through suitable training strategies is mandatory for coaches and practitioners [10–12]. This is particularly important for young players that would benefit from a balanced development of both general and sport-specific stimuli especially during the sampling years (6–12 years). In this sense, activities based on non-sport-specific stimuli (for example without the ball in soccer) may help to improve physical fitness in individuals regularly practicing a specific sport [13, 14]. For example, non-sport-specific drills can stimulate important determinants for fitness in soccer such as speed, agility and quickness (SAQ [12, 15]). The SAQ training method refers to a training approach based on movement tasks performed with high rate in short-time (quickness) combined with straight (speed) and multidirectional sprints (change of direction, COD) over a variety of distances with and without cognitive stimuli (agility [12]). Numerous studies demonstrated the positive effects of the SAQ training on agility and soccer-related performance in young adults, adolescents and preadolescents soccer players [12, 16–18]. Moreover, besides the soccer-related literature, improvements in agility were also found in response to a 4-week training programme with foot-speed and choice-reaction agility drills in active men and women [19].

Apart from physical benefits of agility-related exercises, there are also evidences of their positive effects on brain structures and cognition [20–22]. According to an exercise-cognition conceptual framework, the cognitive engagement required to manage complex physical tasks may be the responsible of the cognitive improvements following specific exercises [21, 22]. In fact, physical exercises including some form of cognitive engagement such as team sports, neuromotor and agility exercises were found to induce beneficial effects on cognition [21–27]. In this scenario, emphasis has been devoted on the cognitive benefits related to physical activity and physical exercises in the context of developing and maintaining health across the whole lifespan [21, 25, 27]. However, also the sport performance literature has begun to address the exercise-cognition interaction by examining the effects of cognitively challenging exercises on both physical and cognitive performance [20]. Accordingly, Lenneman et al. [20] demonstrated that a 6-week agility training programme improved memory and sustained vigilance by ~ 11% and ~ 2%, respectively, whereas no improvement was found after a 6-week running training programme. Furthermore, Lenneman et al. [20] reported similar benefits on selective attention when compared with running. This evidence suggests that exercises aimed at stimulating agility might be a useful strategy for targeting both physical and cognitive performances. It is worth noting that the study by Lenneman et al. [20] was performed in a military setting on adult individuals, whereas whether a training programme based on speed, quickness and agility drills would induce positive benefits on both physical and cognitive domains in preadolescents remains unclear.

We decided to examine the effects of SAQ compared with sport-specific training (i.e., small-sided games, SSG) on physical and cognitive performances in young soccer players. SSG are typically described as smaller versions of the formal game, mostly used to optimize the time of training stimulating the sport-specific determinants (among which physiological, physical, technical, tactical, and cognitive) [28]. From a practical viewpoint, understanding the effect of specific training methodologies on both physical and cognitive domains might be helpful for coaches and practitioners to stimulate qualities related to performance and for a balanced growth targeting both physical and cognitive domains of preadolescent individuals. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of a short-term (4 weeks) SAQ training programme as compared to a soccer-specific training programme on cognitive and physical performance in preadolescent soccer players. Based on results detected in different populations regarding the association between physical and cognitive abilities [4–7] and–at least as preliminary findings–the mutual beneficial effects of physical and cognitive training [7, 12, 20, 22, 25], we hypothesized that training based on SAQ would be at least as effective as a mere sport-specific training for improving cognitive and physical performance in preadolescent soccer players.

Materials and methods

Participants

To assess the effect of a short-term (i.e., 4 weeks) SAQ training programme on cognitive and physical performances of preadolescent soccer players, a randomized pre-post parallel group design was employed. Sample size was not chosen according to sampling theory due to study’s novelty. Twenty-one preadolescent soccer players were recruited from one soccer academy in northern Italy and voluntarily participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to either a SAQ training group (SAQ group; n = 11; age 9.7 ± 0.4 yrs (range 9–11 yrs); height 1.34 ± 0.07 m, body mass 32.3 ± 0.6 kg; mean±standard deviation) or a SSG training group (SSG group; n = 10; age 9.5 ± 0.6 yrs (range 9–11 yrs); height 1.34 ± 0.05 m, body mass 32.4 ± 0.5 kg). All participants were accustomed to regular soccer training as part of the weekly routine with three training sessions (lasting 2 h) and a match per week. Players, their parents or legal guardians were informed about the purpose and of the study before giving written informed consent to participate. The ethic committee of the local university approved the study that was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Design

Two experimental testing sessions were scheduled within one week before the start of the training period (pre) and after 4 weeks of training (post). The first testing session aimed at collecting anthropometric variables and at assessing cognitive performance using two cognitive tests assessing inhibitory control and perceptual speed. The second testing session aimed at assessing physical performance as acceleration, sprint and COD performance. After the four weeks of training (namely during the first week thereafter), participants underwent post-test sessions that were identical to the pre-test. Thus, the whole study lasted 6 weeks. Participants were instructed to abstain from strenuous physical activity in the two days before the testing sessions. Before the experimental testing sessions, participants underwent a familiarization session to get accustomed with the testing procedures. An overview of the experimental protocol is shown in Fig 1.

Cognitive performance

Cognitive performance assessment included two computer-based tasks reflecting inhibitory control (Flanker task) and perceptual speed (visual search task) that were proposed to the participants in a random order. The two tasks were previously used to assess cognitive performance in young volleyball players [23, 29] and were designed using the software Psytoolkit [30, 31]. Participants were comfortably sat in front of a computer with keyboard in a quiet and isolated room.

Flanker task

Inhibitory control was assessed using a modified version of the Flanker task with arrows [32]. The subjects were requested to respond as quickly and accurately as possible to the direction of a left or right target arrow while ignoring two flanking arrows on each side pointing in the same or the opposite direction. The task included two different conditions: congruent and incongruent. The congruent condition consisted of trials in which both the target arrow and the four flanking arrows pointed in the same direction (left: < < < < < or right: > > > > >). The incongruent condition consisted of trials in which flanking arrows pointed in the opposite direction with respect to the target arrow (< < > < < or > > < > >). Participants had to press the button A of the keyboard when the target arrow pointed to the left (i.e., <), and the button L when the target arrow pointed to the right (i.e., >). For each condition, 100 trials were presented randomly with right and left target arrows as well as congruent and incongruent conditions occurring with the same probability. Participants had 2 s to provide their response to the target arrow. Mean response time of the correct responses was computed for each condition and considered as outcome.

Visual search task

Perceptual speed was assessed by means of the visual search task [33]. The target stimulus was an orange letter T and distractors stimuli were blue T and an upside-down orange T. Participants were requested to press the space bar of the keyboard when the target stimulus was present among distractor stimuli and to avoid a response when the target was absent. For each trial, the numbers of items among which target stimulus could be present were 5, 10, 15 and 20, which were randomized across a total of 100 trials. For each item trial, 25 trials were presented randomly, among which trials with the target present or absent were randomized. Participants had to respond as quickly and accurately as possible within 4 s from the trial presentation. Only correct responses were included in the outcome variables. Mean response time of the correct responses was computed for each item trials and considered as outcome.

Physical performance

Physical performance assessment comprised tests assessing acceleration (5 m sprint), speed (20 m sprint) and COD ability with 90° turns (COD90). All tests were randomly performed in a gym with rubber surface at the same time of day (from 5 to 7 p.m.) in both pre and post testing sessions. A 10-min warm-up period consisting of general running exercises (e.g., jogging in different directions) and dynamic stretching preceded the immediate initiation of the testing session. Ten min of rest (followed by a 5-min rewarm-up) were given among tests to ensure a full recovery. Performance time was recorded using a timing gate system (Witty, Microgate, Bolzano, Italy). In line with participants’ (limited) ~10-yr age height and allowing a usual a little bit crouched posture during initial acceleration, the timing gates were placed at only 0.60 m above the ground. Participants began the tests from the starting line, that was positioned behind 0.30 m of the pair of photocells. They performed three trials separated by a recovery of 3 min. The best performance time was considered for the analysis.

Five-m and twenty-m sprint

On command, participants performed three trials of 5-m and 20-m sprint starting from a standing position. They were requested to accelerate from the starting line and to run as fast as possible until the end line. After the end of a trial, participants were asked to return to the starting line by walking slowly.

Sprint with 90° turns

Validity and reliability of COD90 were previously reported [11]. Namely, Sporis et al. found out COD90 reliability to be the highest over six different agility tests [11]. The players began with both feet behind the starting line (point A). After a signal, they were requested to run as fast as possible to point B and make a 90° turn to the right. They continued to run to the point C, where they made a 90° turn to the left running to the point D. They made another 90° turn to the left and ran to the point E, where they made a 90° turn to the right reaching the point F. At point F, they made another 90° turn to the right running to the point G. At point G, they made a 90° turn to the left and ran to the finish line (point H). A schematic representation of the test is shown in Fig 2.

Training interventions

The experimental protocol was composed by 2 interventions per week over 4 weeks (8 sessions, lasting about 25 min each) during the competitive season. The regular week included 3 training sessions (lasting 90 min each) and a match-play per week. The training interventions of SAQ group and SSG group were administered at the beginning of the first 2 weekly training sessions (Monday and Wednesday) after a 10-min warm-up with running and dynamic stretching [34]. Then, both groups continued their regular training programme with soccer-related drills (such as dribbling, passing and shooting drills) and game formats. In the third weekly training session (Friday), the two groups performed the same soccer-specific contents [35]. This weekly experimental setting was previously adopted and permitted to maintain a high ecological validity [12, 34, 35]. Each training session occurred at the same time of day (from 5 to 7 p.m.).

The SAQ training programme consisted of a combination of training elements based on brief efforts in the form of SAQ drills. Two phases (each lasting about 10 min with a 5 min of rest between them) of SAQ drills were administered and matched each other for number of drills, work volume/drill and rest between drills. The number of drills, training volume and rest periods were similar to frameworks previously adopted [12, 14]. Training volume and exercise intensity progressively increased throughout the 4 weeks by manipulating the number of change of directions and sprints. Moreover, the cognitive involvement of each drill was progressively increased from less (few stimuli) to more cognitive demanding contexts (i.e., agility drills with multiple stimuli).

The SSG training programme was mainly based on technical exercises (passing, shooting and dribbling skills) and on a combination of offensive and defensive game-based drills (i.e., SSG). As for SAQ group, SSG training contents were arranged in two phases lasting 10 min each with 5 min of rest in between. In the first phase, participants underwent the technical exercises, whereas in the second phase they engaged in offensive and defensive game-based drills (including both sprints and changes of direction). The game-based drills were arranged with and without goalkeeper by increasing the number of players throughout the 4-week period.

Borg’s rate of perceived exertion scale (running from 0 to 10) was used to ensure both SAQ and SSG training programmes elicited comparable training load session. The training load of each SAQ and SSG session was comparable and ranged from 75 arbitrary units to 88 arbitrary units throughout the experimental periods [36]. Verbal encouragement was provided over both training interventions to encourage the participants throughout the activities.

Table 1 summarizes the training contents of the training interventions of both SAQ and SSG group.

Table 1. Training content of the 4-week intervention performed by the SAQ group and by the SSG group.

Week	SAQ training programme (SAQ group)	SSG training programme (SSG group)
1	Basic footwork exercises (split-steps, line drills, lateral line and multiple hops) with no equipment followed by brief linear sprints over 5 m also combined with cognitive stimuli (e.g., auditory signals as for stop and go running drills).	Passing drills
		1 versus 1, 10 x 5 m
		2 versus 1, 12 x 8 m
		Rules: free play without goalkeepers and no coach’s encouragement
2	Basic footwork exercises (skipping, hopscotch and in&out drills) over the speed-ladder followed by brief sprints with 1–3 change of directions at 30° and 45° over 10 m also combined with cognitive stimuli (visual stimuli on fixed targets as for coloured cone running drills).	Shooting drills
		2 versus 1, 12 x 8 m
		2 versus 2, 15 x 10 m
		Rules: free play without goalkeepers and no coach’s encouragement
3	Advanced footwork exercises (foot exchange, icky shuffle and hip twist) over the speed-ladder followed by brief sprints with 3–5 change of directions at 30°, 45° and 90° over 10 m also combined with cognitive stimuli (combination of auditory signals and visual stimuli on fixed targets).	Dribbling drills
		2 versus 2, 15 x 10 m
		3 versus 2, 18 x 12 m
		Rules: few numbers of touches (i.e., 3) with goalkeepers and with coach’s encouragement
4	Combination of basic and advanced footwork exercises with basic and advanced agility drills in response to multiple cognitive stimuli (visual stimuli on moving targets as for chasing runs and mirror drills) over 15 m.	Combination of technical skills
		3 versus 2, 18 x 12 m
		3 versus 3, 20 x 15 m
		Rules: few numbers of touches (i.e., 2 and 3) with goalkeepers and with coach’s encouragement

Open in a new tab

Statistical analysis

Data are shown as mean±standard deviation. The normality of the distribution of the data was assumed by using the Shapiro-Wilk normality test and visual inspection permitting to perform a parametric statistic. No significant difference between groups–as detected by means of unpaired Student’s t-test–was found for each variable in pretraining test evaluation confirming the appropriateness of initial random splitting all participants into the two intervention groups. A two-way (time and group) ANOVA with repeated measures on one factor (time) was used to investigate the effect of training intervention on each variable. In case of significant main effects or interactions, the Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used as pairwise comparisons. The effect sizes (ES) were calculated to assess the magnitude of the pre-to-post effect using the equation for paired data proposed by Dankel and Loenneke [37]. ES values between 0.20 and 0.49 indicated a small ES, values between 0.50 and 0.79 indicated a medium ES, and values of 0.80 and above indicated a large ES. The statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism version 8.00 for Windows (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA).

Results

Cognitive performance

The effect of training intervention on inhibitory control is shown in Fig 3. Regarding the reaction time in the congruent condition of the Flanker task, no significant interaction (time x group) (F_1,19 = 0.22, P = 0.64) or main effect of group (F_1,19 = 2.05, P = 0.16) were found, whereas a significant main effect of time was revealed (F_1,19 = 10.47, P = 0.004). Specifically, Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed that the SAQ group significantly improved the reaction time in the congruent condition of the Flanker task from pre to post (P = 0.029; ES = 1.10, large), whereas the SSG group change was not significant even if medium effect size was reported (P = 0.14; ES = 0.48, small).

Regarding the reaction time in the incongruent condition of the Flanker task, no significant interaction (time x group; F_1,19 = 1.53, P = 0.23) or main effect of group (F_1,19 = 0.92, P = 0.34) were found, whereas a significant main effect of time was revealed (F_1,19 = 10.12, P = 0.004). Specifically, Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed that the SAQ group significantly improved the reaction time in the congruent condition of the Flanker task from pre to post (P = 0.009; ES = 0.96, large), whereas the SSG group change was not significant even if large effect size was reported (P = 0.39; ES = 0.42, small).

The effect of training intervention on perceptual speed is shown in Fig 4. Regarding the reaction time of the 5 items of the visual search task, no significant interaction (time x group; F_1,19 = 0.005, P = 0.44) or main effect of group (F_1,19 = 0.07, P = 0.78) were found, whereas a significant main effect of time was revealed (F_1,19 = 9.99, P = 0.005). However, Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed that neither the SAQ group (P = 0.07; ES = 0.63, medium) nor the SSG group significantly improved the reaction time of the 5 items of the visual search task from pre to post (P = 0.07; ES = 0.76, medium).

Regarding the reaction time of the 10 items of the visual search task, no significant interaction (time x group; F_1,19 = 0.33, P = 0.56) or main effect of group (F_1,19 = 0.02, P = 0.86) were found, whereas a significant main effect of time was revealed (F_1,19 = 7.21, P = 0.014). However, Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed that neither the SAQ group (P = 0.28; ES = 0.46, small) nor the SSG group significantly improved the reaction time of the 10 items of the visual search task from pre to post (P = 0.07; ES = 0.70, medium).

Regarding the reaction time of the 15 items of the visual search task, no significant interaction (time x group; F_1,19 = 0.02, P = 0.86) or main effect of group (F_1,19 = 0.03, P = 0.85) were found, whereas a significant main effect of time was revealed (F_1,19 = 12.64, P = 0.002). Specifically, Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed that the SAQ group significantly improved the reaction time of the 15 items of the visual search task from pre to post (P = 0.02; ES = 1.25, large), whereas the SSG group change was not significant (P = 0.06; ES = 0.57, medium).

Regarding the reaction time of the 20 items of the visual search task, no significant interaction (time x group; F_1,19 = 0.77, P = 0.38) or main effect of group (F_1,19 = 0.41, P = 0.52) were found, whereas a significant main effect of time was revealed (F_1,19 = 6.71, P = 0.017). Specifically, Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed that the SAQ group significantly improved the reaction time of the 20 items of the visual search task from pre to post (P = 0.04; ES = 1.47, large), whereas the SSG group change was not significant (P = 0.50; ES = 0.28, small).

Physical performance

The effect of training intervention on 5 m sprint, 20 m sprint and COD90 is shown in Fig 5.

Regarding the 5 m sprint performance, no significant interaction (time x group; F_1,19 = 0.31, P = 0.58) or main effect of group (F_1,19 = 0.40, P = 0.53) were found, whereas a significant main effect of time was revealed (F_1,19 = 13.18, P = 0.001). Specifically, Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed that the SAQ group significantly improved the 5 m sprint performance from pre to post (P = 0.013; ES = 0.96, large), whereas the SSG group change was not significant (P = 0.09; ES = 0.63, medium).

Regarding the 20 m sprint performance, no significant interaction (time x group; F_1,19 = 0.60, P = 0.44) or main effect of group (F_1,19 = 1.34, P = 0.26) were found, whereas a significant main effect of time was revealed (F_1,19 = 5.21, P = 0.034). However, Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed that neither the SAQ group (P = 0.07; ES = 0.85, large) nor the SSG group (P = 0.62; ES = 0.27, small) significantly improved the 20 m sprint performance from pre to post.

Regarding COD90, no significant interaction (time x group) was revealed (F_1,19 = 0.36, P = 0.87). Similarly, the main effect of group (F_1,19 = 0.72, P = 0.40) and the main effect of time (F_1,19 = 0.30, P = 0.59) were not significant.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of a short-term (4 weeks) SAQ training programme on cognitive and physical performance in preadolescent soccer players, with respect to a soccer-specific training programme based on SSG. The main finding was that 4 weeks of SAQ training programme showed comparable improvements in inhibitory control and perceptual speed with respect to SSG training programme. Moreover, confirming our hypothesis, the similar improvements (main effect of time) in cognitive performance of the SAQ and SSG group are also reflected in improvements in physical performance (5 m sprint). These findings demonstrated that activities based on non-sport-specific drills aimed at stimulating speed, agility and quickness may be as advantageous as soccer-specific activities such as SSG for stimulating both cognitive and physical domain. This suggests that SAQ training may be an alternative strategy for improving neuromuscular performance (i.e., 5 m sprint) and non-sport-specific cognitive skills (i.e., inhibitory control and perceptual speed) in preadolescents soccer players.

The importance of non-sport-specific cognitive skills for soccer performance has been widely demonstrated [6, 38–40]. For example, in a study assessing general cognitive functions, young soccer players competing at high level showed superior inhibitory control and a larger alerting effect with respect to their low-level counterparts [6]. Moreover, performance in cognitive tasks assessing executive functions was found to be associated with future success in sport in both adults [39] and young soccer players [40]. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, apart from these cross-sectional studies, literature is lacking in studies assessing the training-associated cognitive performance changes in youths practicing soccer. One study by Alesi et al. [41] investigated the effect of a soccer training programme based on soccer-specific drills (i.e., individual skills, technique and SSG) on motor and cognitive tasks in children aged 7 to 11 years. Compared with their sedentary peers, children attending the soccer-specific programme improved 20 m sprint, agility and selective attention [41]. The fact that our findings seem not in agreement with those found by Alesi et al. [41] may be attributed to important differences in the experimental design. The two training programmes performed in the present study were non-soccer-specific training programme (SAQ training) on one side and soccer-specific training programme (SSG training) on the other side, the latter similar to that proposed by Alesi et al. [41]. Indeed, it should be highlighted that the present lack of interaction with the concurrent main effects of time revealed general improvements in both 5 m sprint, inhibitory control and perceptual speed, demonstrating the efficacy of both SAQ and SSG for improving physical and cognitive domain. However, when looking at the post-hoc comparisons, the SAQ group was the only showing significant difference in both physical and cognitive performances (Figs 3–5). Specifically, the SAQ group improved its performance in the 5 m sprint (large ES), reaction time of the congruent and incongruent condition of the Flanker task (large ES), and reaction time of 15 and 20 items of the visual search task (large ES). The lack of significant pre-post improvements in the 5 and 10 items of the visual search task may be explained considering previous literature on the exercise-cognition interaction. Accordingly, tasks requiring greater amounts of interference control (such as incongruent condition of the Flanker task and 15 and 20 items of the visual search task) were found to be superior for revealing possible cognitive improvements related to physical activity and exercise [42, 43]. In agreement with the cognitive stimulation hypothesis, according to which the positive effects of exercise on cognition may be explained by the cognitive engagement of exercise [21, 44], the efficacy of both groups in terms of cognitive improvement could be ascribed to this notion. It is plausible that the agility activities based on repetitive cognitive stimuli might have contributed to maintain a cognitive engagement during the SAQ tasks, as for the SSG tasks, thus favoring benefits on non-sport-specific cognitive skills. These notions were supported by neurophysiological studies showing underlying neural mechanisms that contributed to explain the relationship between exercises with some forms of cognitive engagement and cognition [25–27, 45]. As a matter of fact, it has been demonstrated that a training programme based on coordinative exercises (engaging cognition) induced a decreased activation of the prefrontal areas when performing an executive control task (fewer resources needed to perform the task assessing inhibitory control) with a concurrent increased activation of task-specific areas involving executive and visual-spatial processing [27]. Moreover, prefrontal cortex (important for executive functions) and cerebellum (important for complex movements) were found to be activated during both motor and cognitive tasks [45, 46]. These notions lead to the conclusion of an existing association between complex motor activities (as those of SAQ and SSG) and cognitive performance [46].

A side finding of this study is the general improvement of both groups in the 5 m sprint (main effect of time). The ability to maximally run over short distances is a crucial component of the performance during soccer games [47]. Our finding agrees with those reported in previous studies showing the benefits of a SAQ training programme for improving acceleration over 5 m (5 m sprint), rather than maximal speed (20 m sprint [12, 16, 17]). The significant pre-post improvement of the SAQ group in the 5 m sprint (P = 0.013; large ES) observed in the present study may be related to the specificity of quickly foot exercises requiring short contact time, eliciting higher forces production at faster rates and resulting in an improvement in acceleration performance [48]. The lack of improvement in the COD performance (COD90) for both SAQ and SSG may be attributed to the nature of the tests itself (e.g., relatively long duration), which is mainly based on athletes’ physical capacity and age. According to Lloyd et al. [49], CODs trainability is maximum at 13–14 years of age. Thus, potential neuromuscular adaptations derived from SAQ training may not have been adequate to affect CODS performance in the present under-10 soccer players. This seems to support the fact that focusing on CODs development in so young players may not be a primary aim of youth training programmes as previously suggested [49]. Although the number of repetitions of sprint and changes of direction were not quantified, the literature also supports the notion that the addition of SAQ-related drills (i.e., endurance and speed training sessions) to SSG has similar effects to well-organized SSG alone for improving sprint performance [50].

Limitations of this study

The current study presents some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, as cognitive functions develop from early childhood into adulthood [51], it is not possible to completely exclude the possibility that the improvements observed in cognitive performance (main effect of time) might be related—at least partially—to the natural development of executive functions. In this regard, there should be a control group to assess the investigated training strategies compared with no-intervention. Moreover, the training intervention lasted 4 weeks, which is a relatively short period within the training-related literature. Although we were able to observe physical and cognitive improvements after 4 weeks only, further studies should consider longer training interventions and investigate whether the improvements related to the training programmes could be also maintained after a retention period. Furthermore, measures test-retest reliability should be assessed to isolate the repeated-measure natural biological error from the differences due to the training protocol. Second, although this study employed a sample size in line with the team-sports-related literature, the relative low sample size limits the interpretation of the results as well as their generalization. Further studies employing larger sample size are necessary. Third, cognitive performance was assessed administering two computer tasks. Further but more ecological research could instead make use of some soccer-specific cognitive performance assessment (e.g., passing choice and pitch area coverage), as well as assessing the cognitive engagement of training regimes. Finally, we were not able to depict a portrait of the functional neural adaptations that potentially occurred after the 4 weeks training intervention during the execution of the cognitive tasks. Further studies could use the current experimental paradigm while measuring functional neuroimaging activities during cognitive tasks to effectively establish whether changes in behavioral outcomes would be also accompanied by changes in brain function in response to different training interventions.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our experiment demonstrated that a short-term (4 weeks) SAQ training programme induced similar improvements on both cognitive and physical performance with respect to a soccer-specific training programme based on SSG in preadolescent soccer players. Non-sport-specific activities targeting speed, agility and quickness combined with cognitive engagement (i.e., SAQ) should be useful strategies as soccer-specific activities (i.e., SSG) to be included within a soccer training program for promoting both physical and cognitive domain in preadolescent individuals. We do believe youth sport bodies’ aim should include athletes’ cognitive development, as well.

Supporting information

S1 File

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.1KB, xlsx)}

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work is supported by the European Community’s H2020 Program under the Funding Scheme H2020-INFRAIA-2019-1 Research Infrastructures Grant Agreement 871042, www.sobigdata.eu, accessed on 2 November 2021, SoBigData++: European Integrated Infrastructure for Social Mining and Big Data Analytics. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Stratton G, Reilly T, Richardson D, Williams AM. Youth Soccer: From Science to Performance. Psychology Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
2.Roca A, Ford PR, McRobert AP, Williams AM. Perceptual-Cognitive Skills and Their Interaction as a Function of Task Constraints in Soccer. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2013;35: 144–155. doi: 10.1123/jsep.35.2.144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Nuri L, Shadmehr A, Ghotbi N, Attarbashi Moghadam B. Reaction time and anticipatory skill of athletes in open and closed skill-dominated sport. European Journal of Sport Science. 2013;13: 431–436. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2012.738712 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Formenti D, Trecroci A, Duca M, Vanoni M, Ciovati M, Rossi A, et al. Volleyball-Specific Skills and Cognitive Functions Can Discriminate Players of Different Competitive Levels. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2022;36: 813–819. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Scharfen H-E, Memmert D. Measurement of cognitive functions in experts and elite athletes: A meta-analytic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2019;33: 843–860. doi: 10.1002/acp.3526 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
6.Verburgh L, Scherder EJA, van Lange PAM, Oosterlaan J. Executive Functioning in Highly Talented Soccer Players. JCésar Perales, editor. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e91254. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Voss MW, Kramer AF, Basak C, Prakash RS, Roberts B. Are expert athletes ‘expert’ in the cognitive laboratory? A meta-analytic review of cognition and sport expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2010;24: 812–826. doi: 10.1002/acp.1588 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8.Haff G, Triplett NT, National Strength & Conditioning Association (U.S.), editors. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. Fourth edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2016. [Google Scholar]
9.Sheppard JM, Young WB. Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci. 2006;24: 919–932. doi: 10.1080/02640410500457109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Scanlan A, Humphries B, Tucker PS, Dalbo V. The influence of physical and cognitive factors on reactive agility performance in men basketball players. J Sports Sci. 2014;32: 367–374. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2013.825730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Sporis G, Jukic I, Milanovic L, Vucetic V. Reliability and factorial validity of agility tests for soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24: 679–686. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c4d324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Trecroci A, Milanović Z, Rossi A, Broggi M, Formenti D, Alberti G. Agility profile in sub-elite under-11 soccer players: is SAQ training adequate to improve sprint, change of direction speed and reactive agility performance? Research in Sports Medicine. 2016;0: 1–10. doi: 10.1080/15438627.2016.1228063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Baker J, Cote J, Abernethy B. Sport-Specific Practice and the Development of Expert Decision-Making in Team Ball Sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2003;15: 12–25. doi: 10.1080/10413200305400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14.Formenti D, Rossi A, Bongiovanni T, Campa F, Cavaggioni L, Alberti G, et al. Effects of Non-Sport-Specific versus Sport-Specific Training on Physical Performance and Perceptual Response in Young Football Players. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18: 1962. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Hammami R, Makhlouf I, Chtara M, Padulo J, Chaouachi A. The contribution of vertical explosive strength to sprint performance in children. Sport Sci Health. 2015;11: 37–42. doi: 10.1007/s11332-014-0200-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Jovanovic M, Sporis G, Omrcen D, Fiorentini F. Effects of Speed, Agility, Quickness Training Method on Power Performance in Elite Soccer Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2011;25: 1285–1292. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d67c65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Milanović Z, Sporiš G, Trajković N, Sekulić D, James N, Vučković G. Does SAQ training improve the speed and flexibility of young soccer players? A randomized controlled trial. Human Movement Science. 2014;38: 197–208. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2014.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Polman R, Walsh D, Bloomfield J, Nesti M. Effective conditioning of female soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2004;22: 191–203. doi: 10.1080/02640410310001641458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Galpin AJ, Li Y, Lohnes CA, Schilling BK. A 4-week choice foot speed and choice reaction training program improves agility in previously non-agility trained, but active men and women. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22: 1901–1907. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181887e3f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Lennemann LM, Sidrow KM, Johnson EM, Harrison CR, Vojta CN, Walker TB. The Influence of Agility Training on Physiological and Cognitive Performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2013;27: 10. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828ddf06 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Pesce C. Shifting the Focus from Quantitative to Qualitative Exercise Characteristics in Exercise and Cognition Research. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2012;34: 766–786. doi: 10.1123/jsep.34.6.766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Schmidt M, Jäger K, Egger F, Roebers CM, Conzelmann A. Cognitively Engaging Chronic Physical Activity, but Not Aerobic Exercise, Affects Executive Functions in Primary School Children: A Group-Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2015;37: 575–591. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2015-0069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Formenti D, Duca M, Trecroci A, Ansaldi L, Bonfanti L, Alberti G, et al. Perceptual vision training in non-sport-specific context: effect on performance skills and cognition in young females. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 18671. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55252-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Pesce C, Crova C, Marchetti R, Struzzolino I, Masci I, Vannozzi G, et al. Searching for cognitively optimal challenge point in physical activity for children with typical and atypical motor development. Mental Health and Physical Activity. 2013;6: 172–180. doi: 10.1016/j.mhpa.2013.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
25.Rogge A-K, Röder B, Zech A, Nagel V, Hollander K, Braumann K-M, et al. Balance training improves memory and spatial cognition in healthy adults. Sci Rep. 2017;7. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06071-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Rogge A-K, Röder B, Zech A, Hötting K. Exercise-induced neuroplasticity: Balance training increases cortical thickness in visual and vestibular cortical regions. Neuroimage. 2018;179: 471–479. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Voelcker-Rehage C, Godde B, Staudinger UM. Cardiovascular and Coordination Training Differentially Improve Cognitive Performance and Neural Processing in Older Adults. Front Hum Neurosci. 2011;5. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Clemente FM. Small-Sided and Conditioned Games: An Integrative Training Approach. In: Clemente FM, editor. Small-Sided and Conditioned Games in Soccer Training: The Science and Practical Applications. Singapore: Springer; 2016. pp. 1–13. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-0880-1_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
29.Trecroci A, Duca M, Cavaggioni L, Rossi A, Scurati R, Longo S, et al. Relationship between Cognitive Functions and Sport-Specific Physical Performance in Youth Volleyball Players. Brain Sciences. 2021;11: 227. doi: 10.3390/brainsci11020227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Stoet G. PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods. 2010;42: 1096–1104. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Stoet G. PsyToolkit: A Novel Web-Based Method for Running Online Questionnaires and Reaction-Time Experiments. Teaching of Psychology. 2017;44: 24–31. doi: 10.1177/0098628316677643 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
32.Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics. 1974;16: 143–149. doi: 10.3758/BF03203267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.Treisman A. Focused attention in the perception and retrieval of multidimensional stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics. 1977;22: 1–11. doi: 10.3758/BF03206074 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Trecroci A, Cavaggioni L, Lastella M, Broggi M, Perri E, Iaia FM, et al. Effects of traditional balance and slackline training on physical performance and perceived enjoyment in young soccer players. Res Sports Med. 2018;26: 450–461. doi: 10.1080/15438627.2018.1492392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Trecroci A, Duca M, Formenti D, Alberti G, Iaia FM, Longo S. Short-Term Compound Training on Physical Performance in Young Soccer Players. Sports. 2020;8: 108. doi: 10.3390/sports8080108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Clemente FM, Rabbani A, Araújo JP. Ratings of perceived recovery and exertion in elite youth soccer players: Interchangeability of 10-point and 100-point scales. Physiology & Behavior. 2019;210: 112641. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.112641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP. Effect Sizes for Paired Data Should Use the Change Score Variability Rather Than the Pre-test Variability. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2018;Publish Ahead of Print. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002946 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Verburgh L, Scherder EJA, Lange PAMV, Oosterlaan J. Do Elite and Amateur Soccer Players Outperform Non-Athletes on Neurocognitive Functioning? A Study Among 8–12 Year Old Children. PLOS ONE. 2016;11: e0165741. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Vestberg T, Gustafson R, Maurex L, Ingvar M, Petrovic P. Executive Functions Predict the Success of Top-Soccer Players. PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e34731. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Vestberg T, Reinebo G, Maurex L, Ingvar M, Petrovic P. Core executive functions are associated with success in young elite soccer players. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0170845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170845 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Alesi M, Battaglia G, Roccella M, Testa D, Palma A, Pepi A. Improvement of gross motor and cognitive abilities by an exercise training program: three case reports. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10: 479–485. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S58455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Hillman CH, Snook EM, Jerome GJ. Acute cardiovascular exercise and executive control function. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2003;48: 307–314. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8760(03)00080-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Hillman CH, Motl RW, Pontifex MB, Posthuma D, Stubbe JH, Boomsma DI, et al. Physical activity and cognitive function in a cross-section of younger and older community-dwelling individuals. Health Psychol. 2006;25: 678–687. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.25.6.678 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Ballester R, Huertas F, Molina E, Sanabria D. Sport participation and vigilance in children: Influence of different sport expertise. Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2018;7: 497–504. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2017.05.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Diamond A. Close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex. Child Dev. 2000;71: 44–56. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.McMorris T. Exercise-Cognition Interaction: Neuroscience Perspectives. Elsevier Science; 2015. [Google Scholar]
47.Brown L, Ferrigno V. Training for Speed, Agility, & Quickness. 3rd ed. Human Kinetics; 2014. [Google Scholar]
48.Bloomfield J, Polman R, O’Donoghue P, McNaughton L. Effective speed and agility conditioning methodology for random intermittent dynamic type sports. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21: 1093–1100. doi: 10.1519/R-20015.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Lloyd RS, Read P, Oliver JL, Meyers RW, Nimphius S, Jeffreys I. Considerations for the Development of Agility During Childhood and Adolescence. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2013;35: 2–11. doi: 10.1519/SSC.0b013e31827ab08c [DOI] [Google Scholar]
50.Castillo D, Raya-González J, Sarmento H, Clemente FM, Yanci J. Effects of including endurance and speed sessions within small-sided soccer games periodization on physical fitness. Biol Sport. 2021;38: 291–299. doi: 10.5114/biolsport.2021.99325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Zelazo PD, Craik FIM, Booth L. Executive function across the life span. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2004;115: 167–183. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277683.r001

Decision Letter 0

Leonardo de Sousa Fortes

7 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-14492Effects of speed, agility and quickness training programme on cognitive and physical performance in young soccer playersPLOS ONE

Dear Luca Paolo Ardigò,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.  

I have completed my evaluation of your manuscript. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following major revision and modification. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing the comments below.

When revising your manuscript, please consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments carefully: please outline every change made in response to their comments and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed. Please note that your revised submission may need to be re-reviewed.

PLOS ONE values your contribution and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by August 21 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Leonardo de Sousa Fortes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please upload a copy of Figure 5 to which you refer in your text on pages 14 and 16. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Comments to the authors

Dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall, I commended the author for the well-written manuscript and the interesting research topic in young soccer players. However, I have some concerns about the data interpretation and made some comments that need to be addressed before further consideration. I hope that my comments can help to improve the quality of the manuscript. My comments and suggestions can be found below.

Introduction

Page 2. Line 49-51. I understand the author's point of view, but it would be relevant to made this assumption with more caution since to date there is no direct link between computer tasks relying on executive function on specific-sport performance.

Page 4. Line 92-96. This sentence is quite confusing. Please be more concise in this statement. For example, “We decided to examine the effects of SAQ compared to sport-specific training (SSG) on [….]”.

Page 5. Line 102-104. Please provide a citation to support the hypothesis of the study. Also, there is insufficient data in the literature to date to show the superiority of the SAQ protocol compared to the SSG. Based on the data presented by the authors, I am not sure about that. Furthermore, the results reported in the current study do not seem to clearly support this hypothesis (see my comments below). Please review it.

Methods

Page 6. Line 107. Please be more specific about the participant’s characteristics (i.e., range of age along with the mean and SD reported). There is any attempt made by the authors to consider the maturation status?

Page 6. Line 109. Please standardize the term throughout the manuscript to refer to young players. Sometimes appears “children”, “preadolescent” or “young players”.

Page 6. Line 112. It is important to provide more details about the randomization process. Who did the randomization (blinded or not)? How were they assigned (1x1, counterbalanced)? Where was the random number estimated? Were all players recruited at the same time?

Page 6. Line 112. Please separate the symbols from the number. Check them throughout the manuscript.

Page 6. Line 126. Was the post-test performed immediately after the end of the training intervention, or was there a rest period in between?

Page 7. Dependent variables. Why did the authors not examine the test-retest reliability of the measures? It is important to better understand whether the differences are related to the training protocol or natural biological error in repeated measures. This must be considering a limitation of the study.

Page 8. Line 165. On what type of surface were the protocols performed?

Page 8. Line 167. Please consider change S90 to COD90. IMHO, it is unnecessary to add this unusual abbreviation.

Page 8. Line 167. How much time is between the warm-up protocol and the sprint test?

Did participants begin the test immediately behind the pair of photocells or at a distance of 0.50-1.0 m to break inertia?

Page 9. Line 177. Why was this protocol chosen? Because of the speed component in the task, it is difficult to isolate the COD ability? Also, since the authors wanted to examine cognitive performance, it is hard for me to understand why the agility component was not assessed. Reading the introduction, this is the first protocol I expected to see in the study. It is a more ecological test that includes a cognitive component in addition to the motor tasks, rather than just using computer task. This needs to be addressed in the manuscript.

Page 9. Line 188. It is critical to better describe the training intervention to allow replication of the study, especially for soccer coaches working with young players. There are several variables that need to be added to this section to make it work.

1. How intensity was defined and increased, since sprints are expected to be performed at maximum effort. If the overload was applied based on the complexity of the exercise, this needs to made clearer.

2. The description of SSG drills has to be considerably improved. There are several constraints that can be manipulated during SSG tasks to increase physical and cognitive loads (pitch size, area relative per player, rules, etc…). Based on the design of the SSG reported, it is not surprise the lack of improvement in sprints performance. Please provide more details why this SSG configuration were selected to justify why it would be expected an increase in both physical and cognitive performance. As it stands, it is very difficult to have any information about the task.

3. Verbal encouragement and feedback were used in both training interventions to encourage and motivate the participants throughout the activities. This is an important consideration to take into account, particularly to reduce between-subjects variability due to lack of engagement during SSG and sprints drills.

Page 12. Line 232. It is important to provide further information about the effect size calculation. If the intra-groups pre-to-post effects were calculated, the authors must refer to the equation provided in Dankel and Loenneke (2021) to take into account within-subjects variability.

Please see: Dankel, S. J., & Loenneke, J. P. (2021). Effect sizes for paired data should use the change score variability rather than the pre-test variability. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 35(6), 1773-1778.

Results

Figure 5 is missing from my reviewer's version.

This section is one of the primary concerns I have with this manuscript. As a result, the data interpretation will have an impact on the study's discussion and conclusion. Therefore, it is critical to carefully evaluate it in order to be more conservative about the findings.

Cognitive performance:

As mentioned by the authors, there were no interaction effects in any of the cognitive tasks evaluated. However, in the discussion section, they mentioned that “SSG. The main finding was that 4 weeks of SAQ training programme showed higher improvements in inhibitory control and perceptual speed with respect to SSG training programme” (Page 15, line 311-313).

This statement is invalid due to the lack of interaction effects. Furthermore, while there was a significant time effect for SAQ but not for SSG group in some cases, when we analyzed the pre-to-post effect size, the results were relatively similar in practically all variables evaluated. It is important to read my earlier comment about calculating the effect size. Overall, this raises serious doubts about the SAQ's superiority over the SSG, as claimed by the authors. A more conservative interpretation, in my opinion, should be explored, and the writers should be warned about it in the discussion section.

Physical performance:

There were no significant time x group interactions for any of the sprint performances studied, but the authors stated that SAQ induced greater adaptations than SSG in the 5-m sprint performance. Please note that the pre-to-post effect size is comparable across groups (SAQ = 0.64, medium; SSG = 0.70, medium). Furthermore, the test's p-value approached the significance level (p = 0.09). So, in my opinion, the lack of statistical significance may be attributed to type II error due to the smaller sample size and lack of power. This reinforces my statement that a more conservative interpretation of the data is necessary.

Discussion

Page 15. Line 311-315.

As mentioned in my previous comment, this sentence needs to be carefully reviewed. In addition, the lack of a control groups must be addressed as a limitation of the study, especially in studies including young soccer players due to the natural biological development. Therefore, in a group level it is difficult to confirm that one group is superior to other due to the lack of interaction neither that both training strategies are effective because of the lack of a control group. These questions needs to considered by the authors throughout the discussion section.

The authors can explore the differences expected after the SSG designed. It would be expected meaningful differences in sprint performance after the SSG configuration proposed. There were sufficient stimuli to increase physical and cognitive loads based on the SSG constraints?

Given my previous comments on the data interpretation, I recommend the authors to review it. As a result, considerable revisions in this section as well as the conclusion section must be addressed. Therefore, I did not provide any additional remarks in this section because I believe that significant adjustments are required.

Limitations of the study

The lack of test-retest and a control group must be considered as limitations of the study.

Conclusion

The conclusion needs to be more specific. Again, the authors stated that SAQ is superior in both cognitive and physical performance than SSG (in all parameters – this is not aligned with the results).

References

The capital letters of the titles need to be reviewed.

Reviewer #2:

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of a short-term (4 weeks) non-soccer-specific training program based on speed, agility and quickness (SAQ) and a soccer-specific training program based on small-sided games (SSG) on cognitive and physical performance in soccer players. The authors conclude that SAQ improves both cognition and physical abilities more than SSG.

General comments

The article is well written and easy to follow. While intro and methods are easy to understand and I have minor suggestion, I have some major comments in the results and discussion sections, which are presented below.

The authors contextualize and highlight the importance of agility in team sports, and also the importance of cognition in team sports as it is incorporated in the concept of agility. However, I wondered if agility is important, why have the authors analyzed COD when there is no need to respond to a stimulus? Does COD is influenced by the improvement in cognition?

In addition, the presentation of the results and the interpretation in the discussion section is misleading. The authors first report there is no interaction, but then base part of the discussion on the superiority of the SAQ group over SSG, which is not supported by the statistical results.

Abstract

The abstract is well written and easy to follow. However, the results and conclusions are not supported by the authors’ findings, as in the manuscript, they report that there were no interactions in none of the variables. In L29-33 – the authors state that SAQ improved in some variables compared to SSG, which is not true based on their statistical results.

Introduction.

I have minor suggestions in this section.

1) Shorten the introduction

2) Reduce the explanation of physiological mechanisms. I was expecting that the manuscript would investigate mechanisms. It is possible that if I had this expectation, others may have it too.

Methods

L172- Why did you choose to place the timing gates at 0.6m, which is knee height, not hip height as usually it is placed?

L174 - 5-m and 20-m test . Also, describe the test better.

L177 – 90°

L228-229 – The lack of difference does not indicate that athletes were split into two groups, but rather that there were no differences between groups.

Results

If there was not interaction, but there were main effects, authors should report it. I am not convinced that the simple effect is relevant. I understand when authors report simple effects, but the interpretation requires caution, as these effects do not mean that groups were different or the one group improved more than the other. It is my understanding from reading the manuscript that authors discuss their results based on the superiority of SAQ over SSG, which is not supported by their findings.

Although the authors reported no difference at the beginning of the study. Have the authors considered using ANCOVA having the pre values as covariates instead of ANOVA? There is body of evidence suggesting that ANCOVA may be an alternative (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16895814/).

Discussion

L332 – sprint

As I mentioned in the results section, the interpretation of the findings is problematic, as it was made on the bases of superiority of SAQ, which is not supported by statistical results.

Also, I suggest incorporating some discussion on why SAQ improved and SSG did not, based on the characteristics of training. I understand that athletes respond to a stimulus during SAQ training, but aren’t players supposed to respond to different stimuli during SSG? For example, in L362-363, authors stat that complex motor activities are related to cognitive performance. What is more complex, semi-pre-determined exercises such as those used in SAQ, or a soccer game? From this information, I would expect that players in SSG would improve more than in SSG. Can authors provide evidence that engagement is higher during SAQ, or similar tasks, than in SSG?

During the discussion on physical tasks, I suggest that authors include some characteristics of the training. For instance, do players perform sprint and change of directions during SSG? How many repetitions on average? Do these change-of-direction tasks and sprint are performed at maximal effort during SSG? Maybe SSG did not improve as much as SAQ due to lower number of repetitions. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34079163/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34079175/

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 1;17(12):e0277683. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277683.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

23 Sep 2022

Response to Editor Comments

Point 1: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

Response 1: We thank expert editor for his suggestion. Figures were saved as *.tif files.

Point 2: We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter.

Response 2: Acknowledgments section was removed from manuscript. Formerly provided funding information was added to cover letter.

Point 3: Please upload a copy of Figure 5 to which you refer in your text on pages 14 and 16.

Response 3: We apologize for the error. Figure 5 was added.

Point 4: We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly.

Response 4: We thank expert editor for his suggestion. Raw data were added as S1_file.xlsx.

We hope that the manuscript has now reached the standard necessary for formal acceptance endorsement in PLOS ONE.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Page 2. Line 49-51. I understand the author's point of view, but it would be relevant to made this assumption with more caution since to date there is no direct link between computer tasks relying on executive function on specific-sport performance.

Response 1: We thank the expert reviewer for her/his suggestion. Assumption was “smoothed” as follows:

“These findings suggest that non-sport-specific cognitive skills such as cognitive control may be related to performance, especially in team sports.”

Point 2: Page 4. Line 92-96. This sentence is quite confusing. Please be more concise in this statement. For example, “We decided to examine the effects of SAQ compared to sport-specific training (SSG) on [….]”.

Response 2: Following your suggestion, sentence was more coincise as follows:

“We decided to examine the effects of SAQ compared with sport-specific training (i.e., small-sided games, SSG) on physical and cognitive performances in young soccer players.”

Point 3: Page 5. Line 102-104. Please provide a citation to support the hypothesis of the study.

Response 3: Citations were provided to support the hypothesis of the study as follows:

“Based on results detected in different populations regarding the association between physical and cognitive abilities [4-7] and – at least as preliminary findings – the mutual beneficial effects of physical and cognitive training [7,12,24,26,29], we hypothesized that training based on SAQ would be more effective than a mere sport-specific training for improving cognitive and physical performance in preadolescents soccer players.”

Point 4: Also, there is insufficient data in the literature to date to show the superiority of the SAQ protocol compared to the SSG. Based on the data presented by the authors, I am not sure about that. Furthermore, the results reported in the current study do not seem to clearly support this hypothesis (see my comments below). Please review it.

Response 4: Please, read specific answers below.

Point 5: Page 6. Line 107. Please be more specific about the participant’s characteristics (i.e., range of age along with the mean and SD reported). There is any attempt made by the authors to consider the maturation status?

Response 5: Age range was indicated. We believe that the lack of maturation status assessment may not represent a limitation because our participants were pre-pubertal (age range 9-11 years). In fact, growth spurt normally occurs in 12-14 years in males (Reilly, 2004).

Point 6: Page 6. Line 109. Please standardize the term throughout the manuscript to refer to young players. Sometimes appears “children”, “preadolescent” or “young players”.

Response 6: “preadolescent” term was adopted throughout MS.

Point 7: Page 6. Line 112. It is important to provide more details about the randomization process. Who did the randomization (blinded or not)? How were they assigned (1x1, counterbalanced)? Where was the random number estimated? Were all players recruited at the same time?

Response 7: The randomization process was based on a simple randomization procedure. We did not need in our case to operate a stratified randomization because the initial group of recruited subjects was highly homogeneous for demographic and anthropometric characteristics and for training level (indeed, the 2 randomized groups resulted to be well matched for any of the main anthropometric and demographic values). The randomization procedure was performed by a blinded external operator, by using a software-generated random series of numbers. All players were recruited at the same time.

Point 8: Page 6. Line 112. Please separate the symbols from the number. Check them throughout the manuscript.

Response 8: Symbols were separated from numbers throughout MS.

Point 9: Page 6. Line 126. Was the post-test performed immediately after the end of the training intervention, or was there a rest period in between?

Response 9: Yes. Sentence was accordingly changed as follows:

“After the four weeks of training (namely during the first week thereafter), participants underwent post-test sessions that were identical to the pre-test.”

Point 10: Page 7. Dependent variables. Why did the authors not examine the test-retest reliability of the measures? It is important to better understand whether the differences are related to the training protocol or natural biological error in repeated measures. This must be considering a limitation of the study.

Response 10: Lack of measures test-retest reliability was acknowledged as study limitation as follows:

“Furthermore, measures test-retest reliability should be assessed to isolate the repeated-measure natural biological error from the differences due to the training protocol.”

Point 11: Page 8. Line 165. On what type of surface were the protocols performed?

Response 11: Information was provided.

Point 12: Page 8. Line 167. Please consider change S90 to COD90. IMHO, it is unnecessary to add this unusual abbreviation.

Response 12: “S90” was changed to “COD90” throughout MS.

Point 13: Page 8. Line 167. How much time is between the warm-up protocol and the sprint test?

Did participants begin the test immediately behind the pair of photocells or at a distance of 0.50-1.0 m to break inertia?

Response 13: Information was provided.

Point 14: Page 9. Line 177. Why was this protocol chosen? Because of the speed component in the task, it is difficult to isolate the COD ability? Also, since the authors wanted to examine cognitive performance, it is hard for me to understand why the agility component was not assessed. Reading the introduction, this is the first protocol I expected to see in the study. It is a more ecological test that includes a cognitive component in addition to the motor tasks, rather than just using computer task. This needs to be addressed in the manuscript.

Response 14: We tried to address your issues throughout MS as follows:

“Validity and reliability of COD90 were previously reported [11]. Namely, Sporis et al. found out COD90 reliability to be the highest over six different agility tests [11] (in Sprint with ninety degrees turns). Third, cognitive performance was assessed administering two computer tasks. Further but more ecological research could instead make use of some soccer-specific cognitive performance assessment (e.g., passing choice and pitch area coverage). (in Limitations of this study)”.

We would like to highlight that to date, it is well-known that no gold standard agility assessments exist, especially for age as our sample. Moreover, we previously observed the efficacy of a SAQ protocol for improving both physical (sprint) and agility (reactive agility test) performance in young soccer players (Trecroci et al., 2016). In the present case, we were interested in studying whether there would be an effect also on the mere cognitive component of agility (using computer-based tasks assessing basic cognitive functions), regardless the ecological context.

Point 15: Page 9. Line 188. It is critical to better describe the training intervention to allow replication of the study, especially for soccer coaches working with young players. There are several variables that need to be added to this section to make it work.

Response 15: Intensity was defined and increased based on Borg's rate of perceived exertion scale (running from 0 to 10). Overload application over both SAQ and SSG training programmes is shown in Table 1.

Point 16: 2. The description of SSG drills has to be considerably improved. There are several constraints that can be manipulated during SSG tasks to increase physical and cognitive loads (pitch size, area relative per player, rules, etc…). Based on the design of the SSG reported, it is not surprising the lack of improvement in sprints performance. Please provide more details why this SSG configuration were selected to justify why it would be expected an increase in both physical and cognitive performance. As it stands, it is very difficult to have any information about the task.

Response 16: Thank you for this suggestion. We provided a detailed description of the SSG tasks to increase physical and cognitive loads within Table 1. We believe that now the SSG description is more complete providing the Readers a better comprehension of the training tasks.

Point 17: 3. Verbal encouragement and feedback were used in both training interventions to encourage and motivate the participants throughout the activities. This is an important consideration to take into account, particularly to reduce between-subjects variability due to lack of engagement during SSG and sprints drills.

Response 17: Information was provided.

Point 18: Page 12. Line 232. It is important to provide further information about the effect size calculation. If the intra-groups pre-to-post effects were calculated, the authors must refer to the equation provided in Dankel and Loenneke (2021) to take into account within-subjects variability.

Response 18: We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion. We have now calculated the intra-group pre-to-post effect sizes by using the equation by Dankel and Loenneke (2021).

Point 19: Figure 5 is missing from my reviewer's version.

Response 19: We apologize for the error. Figure 5 was added.

Point 20: As mentioned by the authors, there were no interaction effects in any of the cognitive tasks evaluated. However, in the discussion section, they mentioned that “The main finding was that 4 weeks of SAQ training programme showed higher improvements in inhibitory control and perceptual speed with respect to SSG training programme” (Page 15, line 311-313).

Response 20: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. It allowed us to interpret with caution the statistical analysis. As suggested, we have re-calculated and added effect sizes in the Results section, and particular care has been devoted to discuss the lack of interaction and the main effect of time, rather than focusing only on post-hoc tests. Indeed, Discussion has been modified in accordance with a more appropriate interpretation of the statistical analysis, devoting importance to the absence of interactions, and to the significance of the main effects of time. Accordingly, conclusions derived by the data have been cautiously exposed, both in the abstract and in the text, using a more conservative interpretation.

Point 21: There were no significant time x group interactions for any of the sprint performances studied, but the authors stated that SAQ induced greater adaptations than SSG in the 5-m sprint performance. Please note that the pre-to-post effect size is comparable across groups (SAQ = 0.64, medium; SSG = 0.70, medium). Furthermore, the test's p-value approached the significance level (p = 0.09). So, in my opinion, the lack of statistical significance may be attributed to type II error due to the smaller sample size and lack of power. This reinforces my statement that a more conservative interpretation of the data is necessary.

Response 21: Please refer to Response 20.

Point 22: Page 15. Line 311-315.

As mentioned in my previous comment, this sentence needs to be carefully reviewed. … Therefore, in a group level it is difficult to confirm that one group is superior to other due to the lack of interaction neither that both training strategies are effective because of the lack of a control group. These questions need to be considered by the authors throughout the discussion section.

Response 22: We thank the Reviewer for raising such concern. Accordingly, we have modified the whole text explaining better the SSG protocol. Specifically, Table 1 has been revised by including a detailed description of the SSG protocol, allowing the Reader to have a straightforward understanding of the physical and cognitive stimuli of SSG. Parallelly, giving importance to the lack of interaction and to the literature, we have decided to be more conservative also on our hypothesis.

Point 23: In addition, the lack of a control groups must be addressed as a limitation of the study, especially in studies including young soccer players due to the natural biological development. Therefore, in a group level it is difficult to confirm that one group is superior to other due to the lack of interaction neither that both training strategies are effective because of the lack of a control group.

Response 23: Lack of controls was acknowledged as a limitation of the study as follows:

“Or, at least, there should be a control group to assess the investigated training strategies compared with no-intervention.”

Point 24: The lack of test-retest and a control group must be considered as limitations of the study.

Response 24: The lack of control group and test-retest reliability assessment were acknowledged as limitations of the study (read above).

Point 25: The conclusion needs to be more specific. Again, the authors stated that SAQ is superior in both cognitive and physical performance than SSG (in all parameters – this is not aligned with the results).

Response 25: We thank the Reviewer. Conclusions were modified by adding a more cautious and rigorous interpretation of the results derived by the inferential statistics.

Point 26: The capital letters of the titles need to be reviewed.

Response 26: We thank expert reviewer for his suggestion. The capital letters of the titles were reviewed. Actually some of them were mostly capitalized (source PubMed).

We hope that the manuscript has now reached the standard necessary for formal acceptance endorsement in PLOS ONE.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: … I wondered if agility is important, why have the authors analyzed COD when there is no need to respond to a stimulus? Does COD is influenced by the improvement in cognition?

Response 1: We thank the expert reviewer for her/his suggestion. In the literature, change of direction ability with 90° turns is considered a (valid and reliable) agility test. This was stated as follows:

“Validity and reliability of COD90 were previously reported [11]. Namely, Sporis et al. found out COD90 reliability to be the highest over six different agility tests [11].”

Point 2: … The authors first report there is no interaction, but then base part of the discussion on the superiority of the SAQ group over SSG, which is not supported by the statistical results.

Response 2: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. It allowed us to interpret with caution the statistical analysis. As suggested, we have re-calculated added effect sizes in the Results section, and particular care has been devoted to discuss the lack of interaction and the main effect of time, rather than focusing only on post-hoc tests. Indeed, Discussion has been modified in accordance with a more appropriate interpretation of the statistical analysis, devoting importance to the absence of interactions, and to the significance of the main effects of time. Accordingly, conclusions derived by the data have been cautiously exposed, both in the abstract and in the text, using a more conservative interpretation.

Point 3: Abstract

Response 3: The Reviewer is right. The abstract has now been modified in accordance with an appropriate interpretation of the results.

Point 4: Shorten the introduction.

Reduce the explanation of physiological mechanisms. I was expecting that the manuscript would investigate mechanisms. It is possible that if I had this expectation, others may have it too.

Response 4: We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. The Introduction has been now shortened deleting the description of the effects of exercise on brain structures in animals.

Point 5: L172- Why did you choose to place the timing gates at 0.6m, which is knee height, not hip height as usually it is placed?

Response 5: Timing gates were placed at 0.6 m of height above the ground to cope with participants’ height and posture during sprint initial phase. Sentence was extended as follows:

“In line with participants’ (limited) ~10-yr age height and allowing a usual a little bit crouched posture during initial acceleration, the timing gates were placed at only 0.60 m above the ground.”

Point 6: L174 - 5-m and 20-m test. Also, describe the test better.

Response 6: Thank you. Although the simplicity of the tests does not require numerous details, the description of the tests have now been extended: “They were requested to accelerate from the starting line and to run as fast as possible until the end line. After the end of a trial, participants were asked to return to the starting line by walking slowly.”

Point 7: L177 – 90°.

Response 7: Suggestion was operated.

Point 8: L228-229 – The lack of difference does not indicate that athletes were split into two groups, but rather that there were no differences between groups.

Response 8: Sentence was changed as follows:

“No significant difference between groups – as detected by means of unpaired Student’s t-test – was found for each variable in pretraining test evaluation confirming the appropriateness of initial random splitting all participants into the two intervention groups.”

Point 9: If there was not interaction, but there were main effects, authors should report it. I am not convinced that the simple effect is relevant. I understand when authors report simple effects, but the interpretation requires caution, as these effects do not mean that groups were different or the one group improved more than the other. It is my understanding from reading the manuscript that authors discuss their results based on the superiority of SAQ over SSG, which is not supported by their findings.

Response 9: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. As already stated, we have interpreted results with more caution throughout the whole manuscript. Regarding ANCOVA, although this could be an alternative approach, based on the lack of differences in the baseline, we have decided to maintain our approach, keeping the analysis simple. We believe that a simpler approach could be more understandable also by the Readers being more straightforward.

Point 10: L332 – sprint.

Response 10: Mistake was amended.

Point 11: As I mentioned in the results section, the interpretation of the findings is problematic, as it was made on the bases of superiority of SAQ, which is not supported by statistical results.

Response 11: Please refer to Response 2.

Point 12: Also, I suggest incorporating some discussion on why SAQ improved and SSG did not, based on the characteristics of training. I understand that athletes respond to a stimulus during SAQ training, but aren’t players supposed to respond to different stimuli during SSG? For example, in L362-363, authors state that complex motor activities are related to cognitive performance. What is more complex, semi-pre-determined exercises such as those used in SAQ, or a soccer game? From this information, I would expect that players in SAQ would improve more than in SSG.

Response 12: In keeping with the previous comments provided by the Reviewer, along with a more conservative interpretation of the statistical results, we would not remark a plausible superiority of SAQ (although post-hoc and effect sizes are consistent) over SSG (given the lack of interaction). However, for convenience we report here evidence about the beneficial effects of SAQ on both physical (Milanovic et al., 2013; Polman et al., 2009) and agility (Trecroci et al., 2016) performance as compared with sport-specific training (as SSG). We would stress that, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence comparing the actual cognitive component involved in the two training types (SAQ and SSG).

Point 13: Can authors provide evidence that engagement is higher during SAQ, or similar tasks, than in SSG?

Response 13: We would stress that, to the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence comparing the actual cognitive component involved in the two training types (SAQ and SSG). Unfortunately, we were not able to quantify the cognitive engagement of our participants during the two trainings. This was also added within the limitations’ paragraph.

Point 14: During the discussion on physical tasks, I suggest that authors include some characteristics of the training. For instance, do players perform sprint and change of directions during SSG? How many repetitions on average? Do these change-of-direction tasks and sprint are performed at maximal effort during SSG?

Response 14: More details on the physical training have been added in the Table 1. As SSG are smaller version of a formal game, they of course include sprints and change of directions. Players were required to perform as maximum as possible during SSG. However, due to the absence of GPS-based metrics, we were not able to established the number of sprint and change of directions and whether they were performed at maximally intensity. We could only suppose that their number increased progressively by the pitch size and number of players (please refer to Table 1).

Point 15: Maybe SSG did not improve as much as SAQ due to lower number of repetitions.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34079163/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34079175/

Response 15: We thank the Reviewer for this comment. Effect sizes and post-hoc p-values of our study seem to suggest that SAQ may be superior than SSG. However, as already stated, the lack on interaction does not permit this statement. Although the number of repetitions were not quantified, the literature also supports the notion that the addition of SAQ-related drills (i.e., endurance and speed training sessions) to SSG was no more effective than well-organized SSG alone for improving sprint performance (Castillo et al., 2021). Please refer to the Discussion section.

We hope that the manuscript has now reached the standard necessary for formal acceptance endorsement in PLOS ONE.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(39.2KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277683.r003

Decision Letter 1

Leonardo de Sousa Fortes

2 Nov 2022

Effects of speed, agility and quickness training programme on cognitive and physical performance in preadolescent soccer players

PONE-D-22-14492R1

Dear Dr. Luca Paolo Ardigò,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Leonardo de Sousa Fortes, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: I commend the authors for their hard work. Also, I appreciate the clarity of their responses to my previous comments.

I have no further suggestions.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277683.r004

Acceptance letter

Leonardo de Sousa Fortes

22 Nov 2022

PONE-D-22-14492R1

Effects of speed, agility and quickness training programme on cognitive and physical performance in preadolescent soccer players

Dear Dr. Ardigò:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Leonardo de Sousa Fortes

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 File

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.1KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(39.2KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0277683.ref001] 1.Stratton G, Reilly T, Richardson D, Williams AM. Youth Soccer: From Science to Performance. Psychology Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref002] 2.Roca A, Ford PR, McRobert AP, Williams AM. Perceptual-Cognitive Skills and Their Interaction as a Function of Task Constraints in Soccer. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2013;35: 144–155. doi: 10.1123/jsep.35.2.144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref003] 3.Nuri L, Shadmehr A, Ghotbi N, Attarbashi Moghadam B. Reaction time and anticipatory skill of athletes in open and closed skill-dominated sport. European Journal of Sport Science. 2013;13: 431–436. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2012.738712 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref004] 4.Formenti D, Trecroci A, Duca M, Vanoni M, Ciovati M, Rossi A, et al. Volleyball-Specific Skills and Cognitive Functions Can Discriminate Players of Different Competitive Levels. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2022;36: 813–819. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003519 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref005] 5.Scharfen H-E, Memmert D. Measurement of cognitive functions in experts and elite athletes: A meta-analytic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2019;33: 843–860. doi: 10.1002/acp.3526 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref006] 6.Verburgh L, Scherder EJA, van Lange PAM, Oosterlaan J. Executive Functioning in Highly Talented Soccer Players. JCésar Perales, editor. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e91254. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091254 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref007] 7.Voss MW, Kramer AF, Basak C, Prakash RS, Roberts B. Are expert athletes ‘expert’ in the cognitive laboratory? A meta-analytic review of cognition and sport expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2010;24: 812–826. doi: 10.1002/acp.1588 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref008] 8.Haff G, Triplett NT, National Strength & Conditioning Association (U.S.), editors. Essentials of strength training and conditioning. Fourth edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2016. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref009] 9.Sheppard JM, Young WB. Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci. 2006;24: 919–932. doi: 10.1080/02640410500457109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref010] 10.Scanlan A, Humphries B, Tucker PS, Dalbo V. The influence of physical and cognitive factors on reactive agility performance in men basketball players. J Sports Sci. 2014;32: 367–374. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2013.825730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref011] 11.Sporis G, Jukic I, Milanovic L, Vucetic V. Reliability and factorial validity of agility tests for soccer players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24: 679–686. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c4d324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref012] 12.Trecroci A, Milanović Z, Rossi A, Broggi M, Formenti D, Alberti G. Agility profile in sub-elite under-11 soccer players: is SAQ training adequate to improve sprint, change of direction speed and reactive agility performance? Research in Sports Medicine. 2016;0: 1–10. doi: 10.1080/15438627.2016.1228063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref013] 13.Baker J, Cote J, Abernethy B. Sport-Specific Practice and the Development of Expert Decision-Making in Team Ball Sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2003;15: 12–25. doi: 10.1080/10413200305400 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref014] 14.Formenti D, Rossi A, Bongiovanni T, Campa F, Cavaggioni L, Alberti G, et al. Effects of Non-Sport-Specific versus Sport-Specific Training on Physical Performance and Perceptual Response in Young Football Players. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18: 1962. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref015] 15.Hammami R, Makhlouf I, Chtara M, Padulo J, Chaouachi A. The contribution of vertical explosive strength to sprint performance in children. Sport Sci Health. 2015;11: 37–42. doi: 10.1007/s11332-014-0200-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref016] 16.Jovanovic M, Sporis G, Omrcen D, Fiorentini F. Effects of Speed, Agility, Quickness Training Method on Power Performance in Elite Soccer Players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2011;25: 1285–1292. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d67c65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref017] 17.Milanović Z, Sporiš G, Trajković N, Sekulić D, James N, Vučković G. Does SAQ training improve the speed and flexibility of young soccer players? A randomized controlled trial. Human Movement Science. 2014;38: 197–208. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2014.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref018] 18.Polman R, Walsh D, Bloomfield J, Nesti M. Effective conditioning of female soccer players. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2004;22: 191–203. doi: 10.1080/02640410310001641458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref019] 19.Galpin AJ, Li Y, Lohnes CA, Schilling BK. A 4-week choice foot speed and choice reaction training program improves agility in previously non-agility trained, but active men and women. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22: 1901–1907. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181887e3f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref020] 20.Lennemann LM, Sidrow KM, Johnson EM, Harrison CR, Vojta CN, Walker TB. The Influence of Agility Training on Physiological and Cognitive Performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2013;27: 10. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31828ddf06 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref021] 21.Pesce C. Shifting the Focus from Quantitative to Qualitative Exercise Characteristics in Exercise and Cognition Research. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2012;34: 766–786. doi: 10.1123/jsep.34.6.766 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref022] 22.Schmidt M, Jäger K, Egger F, Roebers CM, Conzelmann A. Cognitively Engaging Chronic Physical Activity, but Not Aerobic Exercise, Affects Executive Functions in Primary School Children: A Group-Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2015;37: 575–591. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2015-0069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref023] 23.Formenti D, Duca M, Trecroci A, Ansaldi L, Bonfanti L, Alberti G, et al. Perceptual vision training in non-sport-specific context: effect on performance skills and cognition in young females. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 18671. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-55252-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref024] 24.Pesce C, Crova C, Marchetti R, Struzzolino I, Masci I, Vannozzi G, et al. Searching for cognitively optimal challenge point in physical activity for children with typical and atypical motor development. Mental Health and Physical Activity. 2013;6: 172–180. doi: 10.1016/j.mhpa.2013.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref025] 25.Rogge A-K, Röder B, Zech A, Nagel V, Hollander K, Braumann K-M, et al. Balance training improves memory and spatial cognition in healthy adults. Sci Rep. 2017;7. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06071-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref026] 26.Rogge A-K, Röder B, Zech A, Hötting K. Exercise-induced neuroplasticity: Balance training increases cortical thickness in visual and vestibular cortical regions. Neuroimage. 2018;179: 471–479. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref027] 27.Voelcker-Rehage C, Godde B, Staudinger UM. Cardiovascular and Coordination Training Differentially Improve Cognitive Performance and Neural Processing in Older Adults. Front Hum Neurosci. 2011;5. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref028] 28.Clemente FM. Small-Sided and Conditioned Games: An Integrative Training Approach. In: Clemente FM, editor. Small-Sided and Conditioned Games in Soccer Training: The Science and Practical Applications. Singapore: Springer; 2016. pp. 1–13. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-0880-1_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref029] 29.Trecroci A, Duca M, Cavaggioni L, Rossi A, Scurati R, Longo S, et al. Relationship between Cognitive Functions and Sport-Specific Physical Performance in Youth Volleyball Players. Brain Sciences. 2021;11: 227. doi: 10.3390/brainsci11020227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref030] 30.Stoet G. PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods. 2010;42: 1096–1104. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref031] 31.Stoet G. PsyToolkit: A Novel Web-Based Method for Running Online Questionnaires and Reaction-Time Experiments. Teaching of Psychology. 2017;44: 24–31. doi: 10.1177/0098628316677643 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref032] 32.Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics. 1974;16: 143–149. doi: 10.3758/BF03203267 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref033] 33.Treisman A. Focused attention in the perception and retrieval of multidimensional stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics. 1977;22: 1–11. doi: 10.3758/BF03206074 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref034] 34.Trecroci A, Cavaggioni L, Lastella M, Broggi M, Perri E, Iaia FM, et al. Effects of traditional balance and slackline training on physical performance and perceived enjoyment in young soccer players. Res Sports Med. 2018;26: 450–461. doi: 10.1080/15438627.2018.1492392 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref035] 35.Trecroci A, Duca M, Formenti D, Alberti G, Iaia FM, Longo S. Short-Term Compound Training on Physical Performance in Young Soccer Players. Sports. 2020;8: 108. doi: 10.3390/sports8080108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref036] 36.Clemente FM, Rabbani A, Araújo JP. Ratings of perceived recovery and exertion in elite youth soccer players: Interchangeability of 10-point and 100-point scales. Physiology & Behavior. 2019;210: 112641. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.112641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref037] 37.Dankel SJ, Loenneke JP. Effect Sizes for Paired Data Should Use the Change Score Variability Rather Than the Pre-test Variability. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 2018;Publish Ahead of Print. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002946 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref038] 38.Verburgh L, Scherder EJA, Lange PAMV, Oosterlaan J. Do Elite and Amateur Soccer Players Outperform Non-Athletes on Neurocognitive Functioning? A Study Among 8–12 Year Old Children. PLOS ONE. 2016;11: e0165741. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref039] 39.Vestberg T, Gustafson R, Maurex L, Ingvar M, Petrovic P. Executive Functions Predict the Success of Top-Soccer Players. PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e34731. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref040] 40.Vestberg T, Reinebo G, Maurex L, Ingvar M, Petrovic P. Core executive functions are associated with success in young elite soccer players. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0170845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170845 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref041] 41.Alesi M, Battaglia G, Roccella M, Testa D, Palma A, Pepi A. Improvement of gross motor and cognitive abilities by an exercise training program: three case reports. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2014;10: 479–485. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S58455 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref042] 42.Hillman CH, Snook EM, Jerome GJ. Acute cardiovascular exercise and executive control function. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2003;48: 307–314. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8760(03)00080-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref043] 43.Hillman CH, Motl RW, Pontifex MB, Posthuma D, Stubbe JH, Boomsma DI, et al. Physical activity and cognitive function in a cross-section of younger and older community-dwelling individuals. Health Psychol. 2006;25: 678–687. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.25.6.678 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref044] 44.Ballester R, Huertas F, Molina E, Sanabria D. Sport participation and vigilance in children: Influence of different sport expertise. Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2018;7: 497–504. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2017.05.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref045] 45.Diamond A. Close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex. Child Dev. 2000;71: 44–56. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref046] 46.McMorris T. Exercise-Cognition Interaction: Neuroscience Perspectives. Elsevier Science; 2015. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref047] 47.Brown L, Ferrigno V. Training for Speed, Agility, & Quickness. 3rd ed. Human Kinetics; 2014. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref048] 48.Bloomfield J, Polman R, O’Donoghue P, McNaughton L. Effective speed and agility conditioning methodology for random intermittent dynamic type sports. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21: 1093–1100. doi: 10.1519/R-20015.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref049] 49.Lloyd RS, Read P, Oliver JL, Meyers RW, Nimphius S, Jeffreys I. Considerations for the Development of Agility During Childhood and Adolescence. Strength & Conditioning Journal. 2013;35: 2–11. doi: 10.1519/SSC.0b013e31827ab08c [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref050] 50.Castillo D, Raya-González J, Sarmento H, Clemente FM, Yanci J. Effects of including endurance and speed sessions within small-sided soccer games periodization on physical fitness. Biol Sport. 2021;38: 291–299. doi: 10.5114/biolsport.2021.99325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0277683.ref051] 51.Zelazo PD, Craik FIM, Booth L. Executive function across the life span. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2004;115: 167–183. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Effects of speed, agility and quickness training programme on cognitive and physical performance in preadolescent soccer players

Athos Trecroci

Luca Cavaggioni

Alessio Rossi

Andrea Moriondo

Giampiero Merati

Hadi Nobari

Luca Paolo Ardigò

Damiano Formenti

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Participants

Design

Fig 1. Overview of the experimental protocol.

Cognitive performance

Flanker task

Visual search task

Physical performance

Five-m and twenty-m sprint

Sprint with 90° turns

Fig 2. Scheme of the sprint with 90° turns (COD90).

Training interventions

Table 1. Training content of the 4-week intervention performed by the SAQ group and by the SSG group.

Statistical analysis

Results

Cognitive performance

Fig 3. Effect of training intervention on inhibitory control (reaction time for congruent and incongruent condition in the Flanker task).

Fig 4. Effect of training intervention on perceptual speed (reaction time for 5, 10, 15 and 20 items conditions in the visual search task).

Physical performance

Fig 5. Effect of training intervention on perceptual speed (reaction time for 5, 10, 15 and 20 items conditions in the visual search task).

Discussion

Limitations of this study

Conclusions

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Leonardo de Sousa Fortes

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Leonardo de Sousa Fortes

Roles

Acceptance letter

Leonardo de Sousa Fortes

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases