Duration-dependent acute effects of foam rolling on dominant-hand visual reaction time in male youth basketball players: A randomized controlled study
PLOS One, cilt.21, sa.9 September, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 21 Sayı: 9 September
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.1371/journal.pone.0358357
- Dergi Adı: PLOS One
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, L'Année philologique, Aerospace Database, BIOSIS, Chemical Abstracts Core, EMBASE, Index Islamicus, Linguistic Bibliography, MEDLINE, Psycinfo, zbMATH, Directory of Open Access Journals, Zoological Record, Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Natural Science Collection (ProQuest), Biological Science Database (ProQuest), Biomedical Reference Collection: Corporate Edition (EBSCO), Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest), Materials Science & Engineering Collection (ProQuest), Pharma Collection (ProQuest), Technology Collection (ProQuest)
- Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
- İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Objective: This study examined the acute effects of different foam rolling (FR) durations on dominant-hand visual reaction time in male youth basketball players. Methods: In this parallel-group randomized trial, 102 U16–U18 players were allocated equally to FR-A (30 seconds per region), FR-B (60 seconds per region), or passive rest. Five valid trials were recorded before and after the intervention. The lowest value was the primary best-trial score; the mean and median were sensitivity measures. Baseline-adjusted post-test differences were assessed using ANCOVA. Because the standard best-trial ANCOVA violated slope-homogeneity and linearity assumptions, an extended nonlinear baseline-interaction model was evaluated using 5,000 bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap replicates. Mixed-design ANOVAs examined pre-to-post trajectories. Results: FR-A had lower adjusted post-test reaction time than FR-B under best-trial (difference = −21.86 ms, 95% CI: −30.31 to −13.41; adjusted p < .01), mean-based (−12.36 ms, adjusted p < .01), and median-based scoring (−10.94 ms, adjusted p = .03). The FR-A–control difference was significant in the standard best-trial ANCOVA (−15.44 ms, 95% CI: −24.12 to −6.76; adjusted p < .01) and extended bootstrap comparison (−14.79 ms, adjusted p < .01), but not in mean-based (adjusted p = .33) or median-based analyses (adjusted p = .39). Extended bootstrap estimates were also higher in FR-B than in the control group (9.52 ms, adjusted p = .01). Because this model contained baseline interactions, these contrasts represented average rather than constant differences across baseline values. The time × group interaction was significant only for best-trial scoring (p < .01). Conclusion: FR-A had consistently lower adjusted reaction time than FR-B across all scoring methods. However, the FR-A–control comparison depended on baseline reaction time and scoring method. Thus, the findings do not establish a scoring-independent benefit of the 30-second protocol over passive rest or support a firm practical recommendation.