ArticlePloS one2024
Optimizing young tennis players' development: Exploring the impact of emerging technologies on training effectiveness and technical skills acquisition.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motion analysis driven by table tennis pose and analysis of participation motivation and athlete satisfaction based on artificial intelligence YOLOv8.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Wearable Biosensing and Machine Learning for Data-Driven Training and Coaching Support.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Sports Biomechanics: A Scoping Review on Wearable Technology, Motion Analysis, and Injury Prevention.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The research analyzed the effect of weekly training plans, physical training frequency, AI-powered coaching systems, virtual reality (VR) training environments, wearable sensors on developing technical tennis skills, with and personalized learning as a mediator. It adopted a quantitative survey method, using primary data from 374 young tennis players. The model fitness was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), while the hypotheses were evaluated using structural equation modeling (SEM). The model fitness was confirmed through CFA, demonstrating high fit indices: CFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.913, IFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.057, and SRMR = 0.041, indicating a robust model fit. Hypotheses testing revealed that physical training frequency (β = 0.198, p = 0.000), AI-powered coaching systems (β = 0.349, p = 0.000), virtual reality training environments (β = 0.476, p = 0.000), and wearable sensors (β = 0.171, p = 0.000) significantly influenced technical skills acquisition. In contrast, the weekly training plan (β = 0.024, p = 0.834) and personalized learning (β = -0.045, p = 0.81) did not have a significant effect. Mediation analysis revealed that personalized learning was not a significant mediator between training methods/technologies and acquiring technical abilities. The results revealed that physical training frequency, AI-powered coaching systems, virtual reality training environments, and wearable sensors significantly influenced technical skills acquisition. However, personalized learning did not have a significant mediation effect. The study recommended that young tennis players' organizations and stakeholders consider investing in emerging technologies and training methods. Effective training should be given to coaches on effectively integrating emerging technologies into coaching regimens and practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.