Skip to main content
Download PDF

Does dynamic balance affect cube mental rotation task in badminton vs. volleyball female players?

BMC Psychology volume 12, Article number: 131 (2024) Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 11 April 2024

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Changing from a static to a dynamic balance condition could affect the performance of a cognitive task such as mental rotation. Thus, the main goal of this study is to investigate aspects of visual-spatial cognition between two non-contact sports (i.e., badminton and volleyball) in different upright conditions (i.e., standing position, frontal balance, and sagittal balance).

Methods

Thirty-five volunteer female sports and physical education students, fourteen specialists in badminton and twenty-one specialists in volleyball agreed to participate in this study. Each of the assessments was a 3D cube mental rotation task with and/or without balance exercises (i.e., frontal and/or sagittal balance) on a wobble board. Five stimuli were used in the mental rotation task (i.e., 45°, 135°, 180°, 225° and 315° for objected-based cube condition with egocentric transformation) which included pairs of standard and comparison images.

Results

The findings indicate that there was a notable decrease (p < 0.001; d = 1.745) in response time in both dynamic balance conditions (i.e., frontal and sagittal balance) compared to standing position condition. In addition, results revealed significant interaction between balance conditions (i.e., frontal and/or sagittal balance) and groups (i.e., badminton and volleyball) in the response time at 225° angle and in the error percentage.

Conclusions

In sum, dynamic balance is also an activity that involves mental manipulation of objects in 3D space, which can enhance badminton and volleyball female players’ ability to rotate 3D cube stimuli.

Peer Review reports

Background

Mental rotation (MR) is the ability to rotate mental representations of objects in one’s mind. This ability is thought to be important for tasks such as visual search, object recognition, and spatial reasoning. Steggemann et al. [1] have shown that MR ability is related to the way in which the brain processes visual information. Therefore, Shepard, Metzler [2] introduced the concept of MR, defining it as the process of imagining an object rotating away from its original position. In their research, the authors presented the participants with pairs of misoriented figures of asymmetric 3D cube assemblies and asked them to determine whether they depicted similar or mirror-reversed objects. The authors observed that the time required for judging (i.e., response time) increased as the linear function of angle rotation revealed correlation between real and imagined rotations [3].

Many studies have found that athletes who engage in sports activities, especially those that require spatial awareness and coordination, tend to have better mental rotational skills than non-athletes [4,5,6,7,8]. Furthermore, Jansen, Lehmann [9] showed that if motor skills are correlated with mental rotational performance, then arguably, individuals with advanced motor skills or high levels of physical activity should exhibit better mental rotational performance. In addition, it was found that cognitive skills and motor processes appear to play an important role in solving the MR task. Following this line of research, lots of studies consistently showed activation of motor cortical areas when performing a 3D MR task [10,11,12]. Then, we can conclude that activities require the use of spatial skills such as visualizing and manipulating objects in space to improve MR ability assessment. In this context, Jansen et al. [13] showed that 3 months of juggling training had a positive effect on a timed MR task using cubes compared to an untrained control group. Moreover, Moreau et al. [14] revealed that elite athletes who completed daily practice of a combat sport (i.e., fencing, judo, and wrestling) showed a higher MR performance than elite runners. Researchers have proven that athletes, such as judokas or wrestlers, who require linking visuospatial and kinaesthetic processes during their physical activity, show better mental rotational performance than athletes who primarily engage in cardiovascular activities such as running. Also, gymnasts who used mental and physical rotations in their practice showed a better MR performance than non-athletes [8]. Thus, athletes of different abilities in various sports appear to use different strategies to solve the same MR tasks, linking sensorimotor experiences to the perception of movement and form for these tasks [1, 15,16,17].

In this regard, one way to better understand the link between stability and cognitive processing is to investigate the effect of dynamic balance on cognitive performance. Particularly, balance exercises play a very important role in spatial orientation and visual perception [18] which is maintained by a complex set of sensorimotor control systems including sensory input from the visual, proprioceptive, and vestibular systems [19]. Bigelow, Agrawal [20] added that the cognitive areas of visuospatial ability, such as spatial memory, navigation, MR, and mental representation of three-dimensional space, were shown to be associated with vestibular function. According to Rogge et al. [21], balance training can improve memory and spatial cognition more than cardiorespiratory fitness. It’s possible that stimulating the vestibular system during balance training changes the hippocampus and parietal cortex, possibly through direct pathways between the vestibular system and these brain regions, thus improves abilities and MR tasks that appear to rely on bilateral parietal cortices and the hippocampus, respectively.

However, for team sports in this present study (such as badminton and volleyball, players), were often trained to perceive and analyze moving objects in relation to teammates and opponents. Thus, this requires a significant cognitive process, not only to understand one’s environment and navigate within it, but also to perform a wide range of cognitive tasks that require the visualization of possible situational transitions [22] which could enhance the ability to mentally rotate objects in a visual environment [1]. Consequently, the benefits of team sports may arise from the combination of visual and motor training in MR tasks. In addition, studies [23,24,25] have shown that athletes in team games and special racquet sports have significantly shorter response times than those in other sports. Also, Ozel et al. [8] and Wang et al. [26] studies found that badminton (BMT) players reacted faster to the MR task than non-badminton players. This is because BMT training exercises, require players to repeatedly exhibit the same response to an event. BMT players may thus gain the ability to quickly recall and encode information, resulting in shorter response times that can be transferred to visuospatial tests. On the other hand, BMT players confirmed their ability to respond faster to the 3D cube task, but their MR was no better than that of non-badminton players [27]. Furthermore, Delpont et al. [28] observed faster visual transmission in tennis and squash players compared to rowers and non-athlete controls. This benefit stems from the central nervous system effects of team games and specifically racquet sports, which require rapid visual activity and involve mental manipulation of objects in 3D space [10, 15]. Moreover, a highly specialized sport, volleyball (VB) is known for its quick pace, alternating high-intensity and low-intensity activity, and mix of offense and defense while standing in a low position to receive services. All these abilities boost spatial orientation, which in turn improves visual perception and MR [18].

In this context, few studies [29, 30] have investigated the effect of balance on the MR task or vice versa in sports science students, but no studies have compared MR performance between sport specialties like BMT and VB players, using 3D cube figures as stimulus material under various upright conditions (i.e., standing position, frontal balance, and sagittal balance). In this regard, the main goal of this study is to investigate aspects of visual-spatial cognition between two non-contact sports (i.e., BMT and VB) in different upright conditions (i.e., standing position, frontal balance, and sagittal balance). We hypothesized firstly, that the dynamic balance conditions have immediate beneficial effects on MR tasks by decreasing response time for both BMT and VB players. Secondly, players engaged in BMT are expected to demonstrate superior ability and faster response times compared to VB players in recognizing the correct orientation of rotated 3D cube images [29, 30].

Methods

Participants

A minimum sample size of 35 participants (i.e., 14 badminton and 21 volleyball female players) was determined from an a priori statistical power analysis using G*Power software (Version 3.1, University of Dusseldorf, Germany [31]). The power analysis was computed with an assumed power at 0.95 at an alpha level of 0.05 and a moderate effect size (f = 0.30, d = 0.60 and critical F = 3.150). Therefore, thirty-five volunteer female sports and physical education students, fourteen specialists in BMT (age 20.48 ± 1.04 years; height 1.80 ± 0.03 m; weight 78.12 ± 3.73 kg; experience 6 ± 2 years; average training 8 ± 2 h/week) and twenty-one specialists in VB (age 21.57 ± 1.47 years; height 1.87 ± 0.02 m; weight 80.03 ± 4.03 kg; experience 6 ± 2 years; average training 8 ± 2 h/week) played at national level, agreed to participate in this study. After being informed in advance of the procedures, methods, benefits, and possible risks of the study, each participant reviewed and signed a consent form to participate in the study. The experimental protocol was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for human experimentation [32] and was approved by the University Local Ethical Committee (EDU/PHEDS83961/2022).

Experimental design and procedures

This study is made up of three random assessments (i.e., randomized counterbalanced, Latin Square [33]). Every assessment took place on a separate day successively. All assessments were carried out in the gymnasium at the same time of the day (i.e., between 10:00 PM and 12:00 PM). Each of the assessments was a cube MR task with and/or without balance exercises (i.e., frontal and/or sagittal balance) on a wobble board (i.e., single plane balance board (SPBB) length and width 420 × 420 mm; height 70 mm [34,35,36,37]).

Each participant stands at 1 m distance facing the screen, either in static and/or dynamic balance (i.e., frontal and/or sagittal balance) conditions, on SPBB, with a wireless joystick (Bluetooth) in their hand. The objective is to respond as quickly as possible to stimuli (3D rotated cube) within a maximum allowed duration of 4 min to end experimentation.

Five stimuli were used in the MR task (i.e., 45°, 135°, 180°, 225° and 315° for objected-based cube condition) including pairs of standard and comparison images (Fig. 1). We used the standard image on the left part of the monitor screen and the rotated one on the right of the screen. The comparison image was rotated in one of five orientations (i.e., 45°, 135°, 180°, 225°, and 315°) and displayed at the right of the screen [1, 38,39,40,41].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Example of stimulus objected-based cube conditions

Full size image

The MR task will be studied in three conditions, with each condition on a separate day and an interval of 24 h:

  1. (a)

    In standing position (SP): Participant takes an upright position in front of the PC with a wireless joystick in her hand. The subject was asked to respond as precisely and quickly as possible to the displayed stimuli/figures (i.e., pairs of 3D rotated cubes) by indicating correctness with the left button for correct responses (i.e., same figures) and the right button for incorrect responses (i.e., different figures).

  2. (b)

    In sagittal balance (SB): The subject takes an upright position on the SPBB (i.e., placed on the z-axis for anteroposterior sway) in front of the PC with a wireless joystick in her hand. Subject was asked to respond as precisely and quickly as possible to the displayed stimuli/figures (i.e., pairs of 3D rotated cubes) by indicating correctness with the left button for correct responses (i.e., same figures) and the right button for incorrect responses (i.e., different figures), (Fig. 2a).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Experimental protocol: (a) Bipedal sway, sagittal balance; (b) Bipedal sway, frontal balance [35]

Full size image
  1. (c)

    In frontal balance (FB): The subject takes an upright position on the SPBB (i.e., placed on the x-axis for mediolateral sway) in front of the PC with a wireless joystick in her hand. Subject was asked to respond as precisely and quickly as possible to the displayed stimuli/figures (i.e., pairs of 3D rotated cubes) by indicating correctness with the left button for correct responses (i.e., same figures) and the right button for incorrect responses (i.e., different figures), (Fig. 2b).

This results in 3 conditions (i.e., static, sagittal and frontal balance) × 2 groups (i.e., BMT and VB) × 5 angle display (i.e., 45°, 135°, 180°, 225°, and 315°) × 2 response possibilities (i.e., left-right or same-different) trials for a total of 60 trials. The order of stimuli presentation will be counterbalanced, and each rotation angle could not appear 2-times successively.

Each trial begins with a blank screen for 1000ms, after which a black fixation cross was displayed at the center for 500ms. After fixation, the test image is presented for a maximum of 5000ms and remains on the screen until a response was given. Stimuli will be display and response times (RT) and error percentage (EP) will be recorded via the free software OpenSesame [42]. The MR task lasts about 4 min.

Two AEE PNJ cameras (SD18, HD 720p, CCD 1,000,000 pixels, SSC 1/4000 per second, minimum sensitivity 1 lx, acquisition frequency 120 Hz, zoom angle 145°) were used to perform a two-dimensional (2D) kinematic balancing study. The first camera was placed 2 m in front of the single-plane balance board (SPBB), while the second camera was positioned 2 m to the side of the SPBB to record sway movement. Twenty reflective markers were affixed to every participant using the Hanavan model [43] modified by de Leva [44] digitized through the video-based data analysis system SkillSpector® (Version 1.3.2, Odense SØ– Denmark [45]) with quantic-spline data filtering. The sway velocity and displacement of the center of mass (COM) were studied for both dynamic balance conditions (i.e., FB and SB) on the SPBB.

Statistical analysis

The data analysis was done using the SPSS 20 package (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) software as part of the statistical analysis. Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Effect size (d) was calculated using G*Power software [Version 3.1, University of Dusseldorf, Germany]. The following scale was used for the interpretation of d: < 0.2 (trivial); 0.2–0.6 (small); 0.6–1.2 (moderate); 1.2–2.0 (large); and > 2.0 (very large) [46]. The normality of distribution estimated by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was acceptable for all variables (p > 0.05). Therefore, repeated measures ANOVA were applied to compare the different balance conditions (i.e., standing position, sagittal balance, and frontal balance) and groups (i.e., BMT and VB). Pairwise comparison was conducted using Bonferroni post-hoc test. Additionally, effect sizes (d) were determined from ANOVA output by converting partial eta-squared to Cohen’s d. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

The repeated measures ANOVA showed a significant difference between conditions (i.e., SP, FB, and SB), p < 0.01), and groups (i.e., BMT and VB) in the RT with (p < 0.01). In addition, results revealed significant (p < 0.05) interaction between balance conditions (i.e., SB and FB) and groups (i.e., BMT and VB) in the RT at 225° angle and in the general error percentage (EP) (Table 1).

Table 1 ANOVA with repeated measures
Full size table

Pairwise comparison between MR conditions (i.e., SP, SB, and FB) showed significant difference (p < 0.01) for RT in all rotation degrees (i.e., 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, and 315°) between SP vs. FB and between SP vs. SB conditions (Table 2; Fig. 3).

Table 2 Pairwise comparison
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Response time of groups vs. balance conditions in different mental rotation angles

Full size image

Furthermore, between group comparison (i.e., BMT vs., VB), showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the RT at 45 degrees (2720.83 ± 800.45ms vs. 2082.08 ± 898.08ms, respectively VB and BMT players) and 90 degrees (3051.77 ± 846.18ms vs. 2171.02 ± 932.79ms, respectively VB and BMT players) and the EP at 90 degrees (26.60 ± 23.34 vs. 10.71 ± 20.26, respectively VB and BMT players).

In addition, the interaction between balance * groups showed a significant difference in the global EP (22.35 ± 18.19, respectively) and in RT only at 225° angle in the SP vs. FB and SP vs. SB conditions (3417.701597.64ms vs. FB = 2221.281085.11ms vs. SB = 2110.50822.17ms, respectively VB and BMT players) (p < 0.05) between BMT and VB players.

In the other side, balance (i.e., velocity and displacement) was enhanced when introducing MR task (p < 0.01) in both sport disciplines (i.e., volleyball and badminton) and balance conditions (i.e., FB and SB) (Figs. 4 and 5). In addition, there is a significant difference between sports in the displacement (8.866 ± 2.851 cm vs. 7.609 ± 2.698 cm; F(1,33) = 11.151; p < 0.01; d = 1.632, respectively VB and BMT players) and a significant interaction FB * sports in the sway velocity (3.234 ± 1.640 cm/s vs. 2.471 ± 0.439 cm/s; F(1,33) = 10.667; p < 0.001; d = 1.362, respectively VB and BMT players) in favor of badminton players.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Sway velocity in frontal and sagittal conditions with and without cube mental rotation task

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Sway displacement in frontal and sagittal conditions with and without cube mental rotation task

Full size image

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to compare the MR performance in different upright conditions (i.e., SP, FB, and SB) between two non-contact sports (i.e., BMT and VB). This study was used a 3D cube as stimulus in a mental body rotation task to assess cognitive performance. The aim was to examine if the dynamic balance would affect the performance of these athletes implying their use of motor processes during the task.

The results of our study indicate that there was a notable decrease in RT in both balance conditions (i.e., FB and SB) when compared to SP condition. This finding suggests that the unstable equilibrium position, experienced during the balance conditions, may have improved the cognitive processing abilities of the participants, enabling them to complete the MR task more quickly. In this line of idea, Kawasaki, Higuchi [47] demonstrated that MR interventions have immediate beneficial effects when used in dynamic balance conditions, and that the ability to mentally imagine the foot movement may be related to postural stability when involving a challenging postural task. Moreover, Kawasaki et al. [48] demonstrated that participants in unipedal standing performed the MR task faster than the quiet standing group and had lower sway scores. Also, it was discovered that the MR is involved in upright human posture control and may be related to the ability to stand as still as possible. It was noticed that MR performance was related to postural stability because both involve cognitive processes used for motor imagery as well as motor execution of the foot movement. Bigelow, Agrawal [20] confirm that vestibular function connects cognitive areas of visuospatial abilities (e.g., spatial memory, navigation, and mental rotation) and mental representation of three-dimensional space.

Furthermore, pairwise comparisons between MR conditions (i.e., SP, SB, and FB) revealed significant difference in RT in all degrees of rotation (i.e., 45°, 90°, 135°, 180°, 225°, 270°, and 315°) between SP vs. FB and between SP vs. SB conditions (p < 0.01) but we did not record significant result between FB vs. SB conditions. Specifically, at 135 degrees, players took longer time to respond to stimuli OC. In this context, Keehner et al. [49] and Michelon, Zacks [50] found that for egocentric MR tasks, RT tended to be longer at angles greater than 60° or 90°. Regardless of the increase in response time observed in our study, it is not linear with rotation angles, contrary to the findings of Shepard, Metzler [2], who demonstrated a linear increase in RT with increasing angular disparity between two presented stimuli. Therefore, we can argue that adding a second task (i.e., postural balance) may be responsible for increasing RT by diverting attention from the MR task. In fact, Huxhold et al. [51] and Shumway-Cook, Woollacott [52] both agree that postural stability is the result of shifting attention to cognitive tasks that increase the automation and efficiency of postural control processes. In addition, it should be noted that opposite angles (i.e., 45°-315°, 90°-270°, 135°-225°) converge RT values, possibly due to the right stimulus being a stimulus to the left mirror image. The same results were reported by Habacha et al. [15], Habacha et al. [39], Habacha et al. [16], and Steggemann et al. [1], but these authors used body rotation to confirm that MR tasks typically compute the mean RT of angular differences where the shortest rotational path between stimulus and target is the same. Wohlschläger, Wohlschläger [53] revealed that object-based transformations are the mental analogion to physical object manipulations in real space. Next to, the value of general EP did not show any significant difference between conditions (i.e., SP, FB, and SB) in all rotation degrees.

To test our second hypothesis, we compared the rotational ability of BMT and VB players. We found a significant group effect, showing that VB players take longer time to rotate objects mentally than BMT players at 45° (∆=23,47%) and 90° (∆=28,86%) angles (p < 0.05). This could be explained by the fact that in BMT the shuttlecock travels at a much higher speed and with a less predictable trajectory than in VB, so players need to have quick reflexes to be able to hit the shuttlecock accurately [54]. Many training drills in BMT require players to repeatedly produce the same responses to events. The BMT players may consequently have acquired the skill to quickly retrieve and encode information, resulting in enhanced response times, which may be transferable to visuo-spatial testing [27]. Even though both games are played across the net, BMT players must often respond fast to shots targeted directly at them, whereas VB players have more time to react because each player is aware of their location and function on the court. Furthermore, BMT players use information about their opponent facing the net to select what action to take [55] and receive a version of that information as if seeing in a mirror, necessitating a MR of these information before forecasting occurrences [27].

Our results revealed that the badminton players have better result on spatial imagery test and smaller error percentages than volleyball players. Shepard, Podgorny [56] linked MR and other image transformations to mechanisms underlying visual perception of movement. Furthermore, mental imagery cannot be understood without reference to space, which is inextricably linked to the concept of movement. indeed, the representation of space and the performance of quicker abilities entail a connection between the horizontal, vertical, and sagittal planes and sensorimotor system input [57]. We can take this explanation that BMT players’ physical manipulation of space and the use of a racquet for shuttle exchange may enhance their visuospatial concept grasp more than VB players who used bigger object during the game (i.e., ball) [58].

In addition, the analysis showed an interaction between group and balance appear in the general EP (p < 0.05). Let’s start with the idea that BMT and VB are two team sports, but the first is an individual sport (our case study), whereas VB is played with multiple players. In this case, we found that the BMT player’s perception only focuses on the opponent and the ball. This ability to locate opponents in the playing area is crucial and need to make quick decisions about where to move and what actions to take. This requires a good sense of spatial awareness, as well as the ability to mentally rotate objects to predict the trajectory of the shuttle or the movements of an opponent. However, in VB, the task of ball detection and tracking becomes more complex due to the presence of multiple players in a limited space. A high occlusion rate in ball images between players often means that direct detection methods fail [59]. Additionally, Carroll [22] explains to locate teammates and opponents in the playing area, the players move around the smaller on a smaller playing field while engaging in technical and tactical tasks. Thus, this requires a significant cognitive process, not only to understand one’s environment and move around in it, but also to perform a wide range of cognitive tasks that require the visualization of possible situational transitions.

The interaction between balance and groups, on the other hand, was significant in RT only at 225° angle in the SP vs. FB and SP vs. SB conditions (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the RT does not alter across FB and SB tasks. Stress/disturbance of postural balance, whether on the frontal or sagittal plane, causes the same reaction in both groups [60]. We continue by noting that this could be attributable to the motor task (i.e., balance), which appears to elicit nearly identical reactions in both fields (i.e., BMT and VB players) [61].

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study confirmed the first hypothesis that dynamic balance conditions (i.e., FB and SB) on the wobble board SPBB have a direct beneficial effect on mental spatial capacities and MR of BMT and VB players, resulting in a decrease in their RT. According to the results, participants took longer to respond to object-cube stimuli at angles of 135°, 180°, and 225°, indicating the greatest difficulty in completing the MR task. Furthermore, BMT players had faster RT and less EP than VB players, despite representing the same progression kinetics of EP. Finally, dynamic balance is also an activity that involves mental manipulation of objects in 3D space, which can enhance BMT and VB players’ ability to rotate 3D cube stimuli.

Data availability

The datasets presented in this study can be available on demand at the first author.

Change history

  • 27 March 2024

    This article has been corrected since original publication; please see the linked erratum for further details.

  • 11 April 2024

    A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01681-1

Abbreviations

BMT:

Badminton

COM:

Centre of mass

FB:

Frontal balance

MR:

Mental rotation

RT:

Response times

SB:

Sagittal balance

SPBB:

Single plane balance board

SP:

Standing position

VB:

Volleyball

References

  1. Steggemann Y, Engbert K, Weigelt M. Selective effects of motor expertise in mental body rotation tasks: comparing object-based and perspective transformations. Brain Cogn. 2011;76(1):97–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.02.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shepard RN, Metzler J. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science. 1971;171(3972):701–3. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3972.701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shepard S, Metzler D. Mental rotation: effects of dimensionality of objects and type of task. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1988;14:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.14.1.3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Calvo-Merino B, Glaser DE, Grèzes J, Passingham RE, Haggard P. Action observation and acquired motor skills: an FMRI study with expert dancers. Cereb Cortex. 2005;15(8):1243–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhi007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cross ES, Hamilton AFC, Grafton ST. Building a motor simulation de novo: observation of dance by dancers. NeuroImage. 2006;31(3):1257–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.01.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pietsch S, Jansen P. Different mental rotation performance in students of music, sport and education. Learn Individual Differences. 2012;22(1):159–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jansen P, Pietsch S. Physical activity improves mental rotation performance. Creative Educ. 2010;1(1):58–61. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2010.11009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ozel S, Larue J, Molinaro C. Relation between Sport Activity and Mental Rotation: comparison of three groups of subjects. Percept Mot Skills. 2002;95(3suppl):1141–54. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.3f.1141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jansen P, Lehmann J. Mental rotation performance in soccer players and gymnasts in an object-based mental rotation task. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2013;9(2):92. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0135-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen MS, Kosslyn SM, Breiter HC, DiGirolamo GJ, Thompson WL, Anderson AK, et al. Changes in cortical activity during mental rotation a mapping study using functional MRI. Brain. 1996;119(1):89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/119.1.89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Richter W, Somorjai R, Summers R, Jarmasz M, Menon RS, Gati JS, et al. Motor Area Activity during Mental Rotation studied by time-resolved single-trial fMRI. J Cogn Neurosci. 2000;12(2):310–20. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams JD, Rippon G, Stone BM, Annett J. Psychophysiological correlates of dynamic imagery. Br J Psychol. 1995;86(2):283–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02562.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jansen P, Titze C, Heil M. The influence of juggling on mental rotation performance. Int J Sport Psycol. 2009;40:351–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moreau D, Clerc J, Mansy-Dannay A, Guerrien A. Enhancing spatial ability through Sport Practice. J Individual Differences. 2012;33(2):83–8. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Habacha H, Mallek M, Moreau D, Khalfallah S, Mkaouer B. Differences in Mental Rotation Strategies depend on the level of Motor Expertise. Am J Psychol. 2022;135(3):325–36. https://doi.org/10.5406/19398298.135.3.06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Habacha H, Molinaro C, Dosseville F. Effects of gender, imagery ability, and sports practice on the performance of a mental rotation task. Am J Psychol. 2014;127(3):313–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Habacha H, Molinaro C, Tabben M, Lejeune-Poutrain L. Implementation of specific motor expertise during a mental rotation task of hands. Exp Brain Res. 2014;232(11):3465–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sopa IS. Developing spatial orientation at Young Volleyball Players. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov Series. Sci Hum Kinetics. 2021;14(63):111–22. https://doi.org/10.31926/but.shk.2021.14.63.2.13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Notarnicola A, Maccagnano G, Pesce V, Tafuri S, Novielli G, Moretti B. Visual- spatial capacity: gender and sport differences in young volleyball and tennis athletes and non-athletes. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7(1):57. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bigelow RT, Agrawal Y. Vestibular involvement in cognition: Visuospatial ability, attention, executive function, and memory. J Vestib Res. 2015;25:73–89. https://doi.org/10.3233/VES-150544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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(1):5661. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06071-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Carroll JB. Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor-analytic studies. Volume 1. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1993.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Bhanot JL, Sidhu LS. Comparative study of reaction time in Indian sportsmen specializing in hockey, volleyball, weightlifting and gymnastics. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1980;20(1):113–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dogan B. Multiple-choice reaction and visual perception in female and male elite athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2009;49(1):91–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Erickson GB. Sports vision: vision care for the enhancement of sports performance. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wang C-H, Tsai C-L, Tu K-C, Muggleton NG, Juan C-H, Liang W-K. Modulation of brain oscillations during fundamental visuo-spatial processing: a comparison between female collegiate badminton players and sedentary controls. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2015;16:121–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kamruddin E. The influence of the Mental Rotation Task on Mental Rotation skills in Badminton. Psychology. 2022;12(11):890–3. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5542/2022.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Delpont E, Dolisi C, Suisse G, Bodino G, Gastaud M. Visual evoked potentials: differences related to physical activity. Int J Sports Med. 1991;12(03):293–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1024684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hofmann P, Jansen P. The relation of Mental Rotation and Postural Stability. J Mot Behav. 2023;55(6):580–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2021.1899113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Budde K, Weigelt M. No effects of different perturbations on the performance in a mental body-rotation task (MBRT) with egocentric perspective transformations and object-based transformations. Hum Mov Sci. 2023;92:103156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2023.103156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G* power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149–60. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Carlson RV, Boyd KM, Webb DJ. The revision of the declaration of Helsinki: past, present and future. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(6):695–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2004.02103.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Zar J. The Latin Square Experimental design– multiway factorial analysis of Variance. In: Zar J, editor. Biostatistical analysis. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1984. pp. 185–205.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Almeida GL, Carvalho RL, Talis VL. Postural strategy to keep balance on the seesaw. Gait Posture. 2006;23(1):17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.11.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. El-Ashkar HIM, Amara S, Al-Hadabi B, Mkaouer B. Analysis of postural balance between two aquatic sports using vertical vs horizontal body position. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2023;27(3):836–44. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202302_31175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mattacola CG, Lloyd JW. Effects of a 6-week strength and proprioception training program on measures of dynamic balance: a single-case design. J Athl Train. 1997;32(2):127–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mkaouer B, Jemni M, Hammoudi-Nassib S, Amara S, Chaabene H. Kinematic analysis of postural control in gymnasts vs. athletes practicing different sports. Sport Sci Health. 2017;13(3):573–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-017-0383-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Feng T, Zhang Z, Ji Z, Jia B, Li Y. Selective effects of Sport Expertise on the stages of Mental Rotation Tasks with object-based and egocentric transformations. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2017;13(3):248–56. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0225-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Habacha H, Lejeune-Poutrain L, Molinaro C. Realistic Stimuli Reveal Selective effects of Motor Expertise during a Mental Body Rotation Task. Am J Psychol. 2017;130(1):47–62. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.1.0047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kaltner S, Jansen P. Mental rotation and motor performance in children with developmental dyslexia. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35(3):741–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Khalfallah S, Mkaouer B, Amara S, Habacha H, Souissi N. Effect of differing exercise intensities on the response time of gymnasts and non-gymnasts in 3d cube mental rotation task. Sci Gymnastics J. 2021;13(3):301–440. https://doi.org/10.52165/sgj.13.3.301-309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mathôt S, Schreij D, Theeuwes J, OpenSesame. An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2012;44(2):314–24. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hanavan EP. A mathematical model of the human body. AMRL-TR. 1964/10/01 ed. Ohio, USA: Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Lab Wright-Patterson 1964. p. 1-149.

  44. De Leva P. Adjustments to Zatsiorsky-Seluyanov’s segment in inertial parameters. J Biomech. 1996;29(9):1223–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9290(95)00178-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Brønd JC, Elbæk L. Problem based learning and the use of digital tools, for improving use and understanding of biomechanics in practical sports subjects. In: Froberg K, Skovgaard T, editors. Proceedings of the 2nd NORDPLUS-IDROTT Conference. Odense, Region of Southern Denmark, Denmark: University of Southern Denmark; 2013. p. 24.

  46. Hopkins WG. A new view of statistics. A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. Sportscience. 2002.

  47. Kawasaki T, Higuchi T. Immediate Beneficial effects of Mental Rotation using Foot Stimuli on Upright Postural Stability in healthy participants. Rehabilitation Res Pract. 2013;2013:890962. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/890962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kawasaki T, Yasuda K, Fukuhara K, Higuchi T. Relationship between Mental Rotation of Body Parts and Postural Stability during quiet stance. J Imag Res Sport Phys Activity. 2014;9(1):39–46. https://doi.org/10.1515/jirspa-2014-0001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Keehner M, Guerin SA, Miller MB, Turk DJ, Hegarty M. Modulation of neural activity by angle of rotation during imagined spatial transformations. NeuroImage. 2006;33(1):391–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Michelon P, Zacks JM. Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Percept Psychophys. 2006;68(2):327–37. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Huxhold O, Li S-C, Schmiedek F, Lindenberger U. Dual-tasking postural control: aging and the effects of cognitive demand in conjunction with focus of attention. Brain Res Bull. 2006;69(3):294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2006.01.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Motor control: translating research into clinical practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.

  53. Wohlschläger A, Wohlschläger A. Mental and manual rotation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998;24:397–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.2.397.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Phomsoupha M, Laffaye G. The Science of Badminton: game characteristics, Anthropometry, Physiology, Visual Fitness and Biomechanics. Sports Med. 2015;45(4):473–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0287-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kamruddin E, Mannan S. The influence of expertise on anticipation of badminton single serves. Int J Racket Sports Sci. 2019;2(1):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Shepard RN, Podgorny P. Cognitive processes that resemble perceptual processes. Handbook of learning & cognitive processes: V Human information. Oxford, England: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1978. pp. 189–237.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Clement G, Berthoz A, Lestienne F. Adaptive changes in perception of body orientation and mental image rotation in microgravity. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1987;58(9 Pt 2):A159–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wexler M, Kosslyn SM, Berthoz A. Motor processes in mental rotation. Cognition. 1998;68(1):77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00032-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Chakraborty B, Meher S. A trajectory-based ball detection and tracking system with applications to shot-type identification in volleyball videos. 2012 International Conference on Signal Processing and Communications (SPCOM)2012. p. 1–5.

  60. Bisht R, Singh CM, Mardikar M. A comparative study of reaction ability and balance ability among players belonging to contact, semi-contact and non-contact sports. Int J Phys Educ Sports Health. 2017;4(4):77–80.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Trivedi P, Rawal H. A comparative study of physical and mental efficiency of badminton and volleyball players in Rajasthan. Int J Phys Educ Sports Manage Yogic Sci. 2020;10(2):18–21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the participants who took part in this investigation. A particular thank to the Physical Education and Sport Sciences Department, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University.

Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The research reported in this paper was supported by the Physical Education and Sport Sciences Department, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Physical Education and Sport Sciences Department, College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman

    Samiha Amara, Badriya Al-Hadabi, Heba El-Ashkar & Nabil Gmada

  2. Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Ksar Said, Manouba University, Tunis, Tunisia

    Hamdi Habacha & Bessem Mkaouer

Authors
  1. Samiha Amara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Badriya Al-Hadabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heba El-Ashkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nabil Gmada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hamdi Habacha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bessem Mkaouer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SA drafted the initial manuscript; SA and HEA performed data acquisition; BM, HH and SA performed the statistical analysis and interpreted the data; SA, HEA, BAH, and BM were responsible for manuscript revision and preparation of this manuscript; HH, BAH, NG and BM critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agree with the order of presentation of the authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samiha Amara.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The procedure of this study complies with the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. The study was approved by the Sultan Qaboos University, Local Ethical Committee, College of Education (EDU/PHEDS83961/2022). All participants were informed about the nature of the study, and all provided.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amara, S., Al-Hadabi, B., El-Ashkar, H. et al. Does dynamic balance affect cube mental rotation task in badminton vs. volleyball female players?. BMC Psychol 12, 131 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01589-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01589-w

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us