It's time we talked about the shiny, new toys in your gym

The logical fallacy

We need to talk about the shiny, new toys in your gym, on your court or on your field.

Every time a new piece of technology hits the market promising to sharpen an athlete’s focus or shave milliseconds off their reaction time, coaches (or perhaps more likely, administrators influencing coaches) get excited. I get it. Everyone is looking for marginal gains. Recently, the focus has been heavily on Visual and Cognitive Training. Think stroboscopic glasses, reaction walls, and reaction lights.

These tools are everywhere, and the sales pitches are convincing. First, the salespeople for these companies will convince you that faster reaction times, better response inhibition or even better, Game Intelligence, are important for sports performance. And they are right, they are. What they fail to tell you however is that so is being able to tie your shoelaces, but we don't test or train shoelace-tying speed, do we? The reality is that generic visual and cognitive skills are likely important, but only to a certain point. Once you have a sufficient amount (which almost anyone who engages in sports at a reasonable level would), more does not equal better. But, let's give these salespeople the benefit of the doubt for now.

Not for long though. The next thing they show is their 'internal' data showing athletes who react faster after six weeks of training with coloured, blinking lights. Or, they'll show 'internal' data to show you that their cognitive tests can predict with reasonable accuracy, who will or won't make it in professional sports.

If you're a skeptic like me you know that most things that are too good to be true, really ARE too good to be true. Or... that there is no shortcut to anywhere worth going.

Taking shortcuts is human nature

If a simple guy like me, with some logic and the use of the scientific literature (for a summary see here), can figure this out, why are there so many generic cognitive and visual training programs and tools out there?

It is human nature to look for shortcuts. Du Sautois wrote in his book "Thinking Better, the Art of the Shortcut" that "Our brains have evolved to be shortcut-seeking machines because, for our ancestors, the ability to find a faster or more efficient way of doing things was often the difference between life and death". I am not saying here that sports training is a matter of life and death, but the same idea remains. When shortcuts are seemingly available, it is in our nature to try them.

But why then are these technologies used so often? If they do not work (or they don't work as advertised) why do sporting organisations and individuals keep using them? There are several reasons:

• They become part of the 'ways of working' at an organisation. They become part of the furniture as it were. No one still considers whether they should or should not be there.

• Their internal interpretation makes it look like they work. If you both train cognitive skills and then select based on them, your selection is confounded and biased. This is called 'selection bias' and basically means many of these tools are shown to be effective because they are both part of the training AND the selection process.

• Organisations mistake near transfers for far transfers. Training with all of these technologies and tools make you better at exactly the task your training. If you train to react to lights while dribbing a ball, you will get better at reacting to lights when dribbling a ball. This is often mistaken for improved performance or learning in the core task of playing basketball, which is of course not the case. Any tool that is claiming to elicit far transfer (e.g. from reacting to flashing lights to playing football) should be scrutinised.

So what can you do?

So, what does this mean for you, the coach, trying to invest wisely and train effectively?

1. Demand to see evidence of far transfer: If you use a digital visual training tool, you must ruthlessly assess whether the improvements observed on the device actually show up during a complex, live-action practice drill or, better yet, in a competition. Don't assume "near transfer" (getting good at the specific drill) automatically leads to "far transfer" (getting good in the game). In my decade of evaluating these training technologies, I have not come across ONE that convincingly provides evidence of far transfer.

   
   

2. Context, context, context: The best visual-perceptual training is often integrated directly into the specific sport context. If you want your basketball player to read an opponent, having them react to an opponent’s actual body language in a small-sided game will always be far superior to having them tap a random blinking light. In our pursuit of being more intentional with how we train, we should seriously consider if there is anything else we could be doing instead of tapping random lights or playing brain games. In 99,9% of cases there is (think of how valuable a nap or meeting with loved ones would be instead).

   
   

3. Tech as an ally, not a leader: Digital technology certainly has a place. It can provide objective feedback and unique challenges. But the technology should serve the principle of training specificity, not dictate it.

4. Consider return on investment: What will give you the greatest return on your resource investment? Paying 50,000 USD per year on cognitive training technology or investing in your coaches and players? I rest my case.

What's the harm?

What is the harm I hear you asking? So what if a team with millions in their operating budget spends 50,000 on cognitive or visual training tools? I understand what you mean. Sports performance often relies on temporary performance advantages. Gaining the edge because you were an early adopter can be meaningful. But... think about it this way too. What if there was another tool, where you had a greater degree of confidence that it would work, that you could invest those 50,000 in instead? What if you invested it into coach education? Or in childcare opportunities for players' children? Additionally, while there may not be a risk of major harm in a professional team, think of the father who saves their paychecks and purchases the same technology to help their daughter succeed, because the pro's are using it? Think of the R &D investment that continues to flow into these tools, while ignoring other tools with a greater likelihood of benefiting sports coaches, staff and athletes?

Reference

Fransen, J. There is No Supporting Evidence for a Far Transfer of General Perceptual or Cognitive Training to Sports Performance. Sports Med 54, 2717–2724 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02060-x