CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Augmented Reality ApplicationsSport Psychology and PerformanceSports and Physical Education Research

Real-time feedback enhances motor learning and motivation in youth team sports through augmented reality tools

Open access
He, Xiaohua, Wei, Li·2025·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1661936PMC PMC12714985
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: Live augmented reality (AR) feedback has become a potential tool for the improvement of motor learning and motivation in youth sports. There is, however, minimal information on its combined performance and intrinsic motivation impacts on team sport in ecologically valid conditions. The research question of this study was to determine whether AR-based feedback is more effective in motor skill acquisition and motivation during youth soccer players than coach-based instruction. Methods: Sixty trained soccer players aged (12-15) were randomly grouped into an AR feedback group and a control group that had conventional verbal feedback. The three weeks were spent on the same training drills done by the two groups. On the pre-test, post-test, and four-week follow-up, motor performance (dribbling, passing, and shooting) was measured. The validated subscales of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory were used to assess the motivation. The information on group differences and retention was analyzed by mixed-model ANOVA with Bonferroni adjustments and estimation of the effect size. Results: The AR group recorded much greater improvement in all the measured skills, with the most improvement recorded in accuracy when shooting. The intrinsic motivation (interest, perceived competence, and effort) also improved more in the AR group. Motivational improvement was positively correlated with performance gains. Discussion: The results show that AR feedback in real-time improves motor learning and intrinsic motivation among young athletes. The findings aid the application of AR as a pertinent and interactive instrument of skill development in those sport training settings among young people.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a 60-player youth soccer trial, real-time augmented reality feedback produced larger motor-skill gains and greater intrinsic-motivation increases than conventional coach verbal feedback. The authors conclude AR feedback may support both skill acquisition and motivation in youth team-sport training.

Key findings

  • The AR group improved more than controls on all motor skills. Shooting accuracy showed the largest gain: AR 55.1% to 78.9% at post-test (Cohen’s d = 1.40) vs control 54.3% to 62.1% (d = 0.56). Passing improved from 68.2% to 85.1% in AR (d = 1.05) vs 67.5% to 75.3% in controls (d = 0.61); dribbling time fell from 25.4 s to 21.2 s in AR (d = 1.12) vs 25.8 s to 24.1 s in controls (d = 0.48).
  • Intrinsic motivation increased more in the AR group: IMI interest 5.8 to 6.7 (d = 0.97) vs 5.7 to 5.9 (d = 0.25); perceived competence 5.2 to 6.3 (d = 1.09) vs 5.1 to 5.3 (d = 0.28); effort 6.1 to 6.8 (d = 0.88) vs 6.0 to 6.1 (d = 0.14).
  • Mixed-model ANOVA found significant group × time interactions for all dependent variables (all p < 0.001), with effect sizes η²p = 0.26 for shooting, 0.22 for passing, 0.18 for dribbling, 0.20 for interest, 0.17 for competence, and 0.15 for effort.
  • Changes in intrinsic motivation were positively correlated with motor-performance improvements (r = 0.45, p < 0.01). At the 4-week follow-up, AR retained advantages, e.g. shooting 77.2% vs 61.5%, passing 83.9% vs 74.1%, and dribbling 21.8 s vs 24.5 s.

Methods

  • Mixed-methods, pre-test/post-test control-group design. Participants were 60 youth soccer players aged 12–15 (M = 13.5, SD = 1.2; 30 male, 30 female), with at least 2 years of organized soccer experience, recruited from local clubs/regional youth academy in China and stratified-randomized to AR feedback (n = 30) or control (n = 30). The intervention was conducted over 8 weeks, with assessments at baseline, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up (12 weeks total per Table 4).
  • The AR condition used a custom application with Microsoft HoloLens 2, Vicon motion tracking, Unity 3D/AR Foundation, real-time visual overlays of ball trajectory, passing accuracy, and shot speed, plus auditory cues, with approximately 150 ms latency; training periods were 45 min. Controls completed the same drills with conventional coach verbal feedback.
  • Motor performance was measured with soccer-specific dribbling, passing, and shooting tests; intrinsic motivation with IMI subscales for interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, and effort/importance; qualitative data came from 10 semi-structured interviews (5 AR, 5 control). Analysis used SPSS v28, mixed-model ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections, effect sizes, and Pearson correlations.

Limitations

  • The paper states the intervention was relatively short and could not determine long-term retention/consolidation; the sample came from one regional academy, limiting generalizability; outcomes were behavioral and self-report only, without direct cognitive/neural measurement; SDT needs autonomy, competence, and relatedness were not directly measured as mediators; and a possible novelty effect may have inflated motivation.
  • Evident from the text: the abstract says “three weeks” of training, while the methodology and Table 4 describe an 8-week intervention and 12-week study timeline, an inconsistency in reporting. The study also states formal ethical approval was not required under institutional policy for non-invasive, anonymized research, which may be a concern for some readers.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1661936

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

9 of 14 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 2 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    At the 4-week follow-up, the AR group demonstrated significantly better skill retention than the control group.

    “Skill retention was also assessed at the 4-week follow-up. As shown in Figure 5, the AR group demonstrated significantly better skill retention than the control group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.
  • Findingown data

    The largest differentials between AR and control groups were observed in shooting-based exercises.

    “The bottom row (Δ AR – Control) highlights the magnitude of advantage provided by augmented feedback for each drill, with the largest differentials observed in shooting-based exercises.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.
  • Findingown data

    In baseline measures of motor skills and intrinsic motivation, the AR feedback group did not differ significantly from the control group (p > 0.05 in all comparisons).

    “Baseline in the performance measures of motor skills and intrinsic motivation, the AR feedback group did not differ significantly with the control group (p > 0.05 in all comparisons).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.
  • Findingown data

    Motivational improvement was positively correlated with performance gains in the study.

    “Motivational improvement was positively correlated with performance gains.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Both groups improved in motor performance over the number of sessions.

    “which implies that the improvement of both groups in the number of sessions was observed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • May combine two claims. 27
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A mobile AR intervention in elementary school children produced significant differences in gross motor development measured by TGMD-2.

    “Diller et al., 2025) conducted a mobile AR intervention on elementary school children and found significant differences in gross motor development with the Test of Gross Motor Development-Second Edition (TGMD-2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Diller et al., 2025 source

      Section 4.1 reports 32 participants aged 22–61, not elementary-school children. Section 4.4 says the study assessed comprehension of AR feedback rather than motor development, and Section 6 reports no significant difference in pose-imitation accuracy. The cited paper therefore does not report a significant TGMD-2 difference in children. (LLM, conf=0.90)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Intrinsic motivation was measured using the validated subscales of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI).

    “The validated subscales of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory were used to assess the motivation.”
    • Also stated in: § Measurement instruments · plain
      “Intrinsic motivation was also measured through IMI (Hendry, 2012), which was a self-report questionnaire that gauged the interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort/importance, and perceived choice.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hendry, 2012 source

      Section 2.2.1.3 (Self-determined motivation; page unavailable) says motivation was measured with the Behavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire (BRSQ), not the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory. It describes aggregating BRSQ items into behavioral-regulation subscales, including intrinsic motivation. (LLM, conf=0.94)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Intrinsic motivation is associated with increased effort, enhanced performance, and reduced burnout rate.

    “This form of motivation has been associated with increased effort, enhanced performance as well as reduced burnout rate (Van Dam et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Dam et al., 2013 source

      The Introduction links reduced motivation to expend effort with poorer cognitive performance in fatigued individuals, and the Discussion describes reduced motivation among some employees with burnout. These passages do not distinguish intrinsic motivation from other forms of motivation or show that it reduces the rate of burnout. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A head-worn AR system with ongoing spatial feedback (SkillAR) improved movement patterns with orientation-free corrections.

    “Diller et al. (2025) introduced SkillAR, a head-worn AR-based system with ongoing spatial feedback that showed success in improving movement patterns with orientation-free corrections.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Diller et al. (2025) source

      The Abstract and System overview describe SkillAR as a head-worn AR system that provides continuous feedback and lets users consider movement corrections independently of head position. However, the Discussion reports no significant difference from a room-mounted display in pose-imitation accuracy; the study showed better identification of corrections, not an improvement in movement patterns. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    AR-based feedback may be an effective means of motor learning and performance.

    “The increasing amount of evidence implies that AR-based feedback may prove an effective means of motor learning and performance (AL-Sinani and Al Taher, 2023; Sattin et al., 2023; Diamond, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim3 of 3 sources checked
    • cites AL-Sinani and Al Taher, 2023 source

      The Discussion reports that the augmented-reality program improved physical education teachers’ teaching skills and says its interactive environment enhanced motor skills development. It does not establish that AR-based feedback improved motor learning or performance: the immediate corrective feedback described in the Discussion came from a teacher and was offered to explain the control group’s stronger evaluation results. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Sattin et al., 2023 source

      The Discussion (section 8; page unavailable) says visual and proprioceptive feedback influence motor control. Section 6.3 discusses augmented reality as a possible therapy for body integrity identity disorder symptoms, but does not connect AR-based feedback to improved motor learning or performance. (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Diamond, 2012 source

      The section on computerized training discusses improvements in children’s working memory and reasoning, while the general principles section discusses practice and executive-function gains. Searches for AR-based feedback, augmented reality, and motor learning found no passage in our copy addressing whether AR feedback improves motor learning or performance. (LLM, conf=0.73)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Real-time audio-visual feedback increases technical accuracy in novice volleyball players, leading to rapid motor learning.

    “Faruk et al., 2025) carried out an experiment that showed the effect of real-time audio-visual feedback in increasing the technical accuracy of novice volleyball players, which in turn results in rapid motor learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Faruk et al., 2025 source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) says AR applications can assess students’ movement accuracy and provide feedback in real time. The Conclusions report improved gross motor skills in elementary school students. The paper does not report an experiment on novice volleyball players, specify audio-visual feedback, or establish rapid motor learning. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    An AR training system in combat sports enhanced athletes' physical fitness and technical performance.

    “Farley et al. (2020) found that an AR training system during combat sports enhanced the physical fitness and technical performance of the athletes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Farley et al. (2020) source

      The Background and Results passages concern physical fitness and technical skills in female team-based ball players, not an AR training intervention in combat sports. Searches for augmented reality, combat sports, and training interventions found no passage addressing the claimed improvement. (LLM, conf=0.77)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In youth soccer players aged 12-15, the AR feedback group showed greater improvement than the control group in all measured motor skills, with the largest improvement in shooting accuracy.

    “The AR group recorded much greater improvement in all the measured skills, with the most improvement recorded in accuracy when shooting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The AR feedback group reported significantly greater increases in interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, and effort/importance compared to the control group.

    “The AR feedback group reported significantly greater increases in interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, and effort/importance compared to the control group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    In youth soccer players aged 12-15, the AR feedback group showed greater improvement in intrinsic motivation (interest, perceived competence, and effort) than the control group.

    “The intrinsic motivation (interest, perceived competence, and effort) also improved more in the AR group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    AR feedback produced the most potent effects for discrete precision tasks such as shooting, while gains in continuous control tasks like dribbling were more modest.

    “Interestingly, AR feedback produced the most potent effects for discrete precision tasks such as shooting, while gains in continuous control tasks like dribbling were more modest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The overall trend was for motivation to increase in the AR group and remain relatively stable in the control group.

    “A spaghetti plot of individual motivation trajectories (Figure 8) shows that while there was some individual variability, the overall trend was for motivation to increase in the AR group and remain relatively stable in the control group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The control group also improved in motor performance, but to a lesser degree (p = 0.043, d = 0.48).

    “The performance of the control group also improved, yet to a lesser degree (p = 0.043, d = 0.48).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The AR group demonstrated notably higher gains across eight skill drills, particularly in Target Shooting (35.1%) and Moving Shooting (31.2%), compared with smaller improvements in dribbling-related tasks.

    “The AR group demonstrated notably higher gains, particularly in Target Shooting (35.1%) and Moving Shooting (31.2%), compared with smaller improvements in dribbling-related tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For intrinsic motivation, the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of time on all IMI subscales (p < 0.001) and a significant group × time interaction effect (p < 0.001).

    “Similar to motor performance, the ANOVA for intrinsic motivation revealed a significant main effect of time on all IMI subscales (p < 0.001) and a significant group x time interaction effect (p < 0.001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews revealed that AR group participants reported the feedback was fun, helpful, and made them want to practice more, and that the game-like nature of training was highly engaging.

    “Thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews revealed several key themes. Participants in the AR group reported that the feedback was “fun,” “helpful,” and “made them want to practice more.” They also commented on the “game-like” nature of the training, which they found to be highly engaging.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The mixed-model ANOVA showed a significant main effect of time (p < 0.001) and a significant group × time interaction (p < 0.001) for motor performance.

    “The mixed-model ANOVA yielded the significant main effect of time (p < 0.001) and significant group x time interaction (p < 0.001), which implies that the improvement of both groups in the number of sessions was observed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The principles of the Declaration of Helsinki were followed in the study.

    “The principles of the Declaration of Helsinki were followed in the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Declaration of Helsinki

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    AR feedback in real-time can considerably improve motor performance and intrinsic motivation in young athletes compared to traditional training.

    “The results are correlated with the fact that AR feedback in real-time can considerably improve the performance of motor and intrinsic motivation in young athletes in comparison to traditional training.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Two trained researchers conducted interviews independent of the training sessions to reduce bias.

    “The two trained researchers conducted interviews, which were independent of the training sessions, in order to reduce the chances of bias and neutral data collection.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The AR-based training methodology can be applicable to enhance not just the acquisition of physical skills, but also motivation in sports with youth teams.

    “All this implies that the AR-based training methodology can be applicable to enhance not just the acquisition of physical skills, but also motivation in sports with youth teams.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    VR with haptic feedback improved skill acquisition and retention in surgical training.

    “Davaris et al. (2019) demonstrated that VR in combination with haptic feedback was effective at improving skill acquisition and retention in surgical training, highlighting the generalizability of immersive technologies to other settings of performance-based learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Davaris et al. (2019) source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Participants were randomly assigned to either the AR feedback group or the control group.

    “Participants were randomly assigned to either the AR feedback group or the control group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The intervention time was relatively short, and it was not possible to determine long-term retention and consolidation of motor learning.

    “First, the intervention time was relatively short, and it was not possible to determine long-term retention and consolidation of motor learning.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The sample was a group of youth athletes trained in one regional academy only, which could limit the application of the results to other sporting conditions or levels of competition.

    “Second, the sample was a group of youth athletes that have been trained in one regional academy only, which could limit the application of the results to other sporting conditions or levels of competition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Random assignment was performed using a stratified randomization procedure to ensure comparable distributions of experience levels between groups.

    “Random assignment was performed using a stratified randomization procedure to ensure comparable distributions of experience levels between groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Real-time AR feedback improves motor learning and intrinsic motivation among young athletes.

    “The results show that AR feedback in real-time improves motor learning and intrinsic motivation among young athletes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Athletes who experienced larger changes in motivational level also experienced larger gains in skills, which may reflect a possible synergy between psychological involvement and physical training outcome.

    “The athletes who experienced the larger changes in motivational level also experienced the larger gains in skills, which may reflect the possible synergy between psychological involvement and the outcome of physical training.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The current design failed to measure autonomy, competence, or relatedness as mediation variables.

    “Lastly, although the motivational results agreed with the postulates of SDT, the current design failed to measure autonomy, competence, or relatedness as mediation variables.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    AR-mediated feedback has the potential to both foster technical skill growth and positively motivate individuals, thus promoting more effective learning experiences in the youth sport setting.

    “These findings provide the indication that AR-mediated feedback has the potential to both foster technical skill growth and positively motivate individuals and, thus, allow promoting more effective learning experiences in the youth sport setting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The research was aimed at behavioral and self-report outcomes and did not directly measure underlying cognitive and neural processes.

    “Third, the research was aimed at behavioral and self-report outcomes, and it was not concerned with direct measurement of underlying cognitive and neural processes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Statistical assumptions were verified before analysis: normality by Shapiro-Wilk, homogeneity of variance by Levene, and sphericity by Mauchly; Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used if sphericity was violated.

    “Normality was checked by the Shapiro–Wilk test, the homogeneity of variance was checked using the Levene test, and the Mauchly test was used to test the assumption of being spherical.”
    • Also stated in: § Data analysis strategy · plain
      “In the case of a violation of the assumption of sphericity, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was used to correct the degrees of freedom.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    An adaptive AR hoop training system that dynamically adapted task difficulty in real time presented better motor learning results than non-adaptive systems.

    “Li et al. (2025) proposed adaptive hoop training system based on the AR that could dynamically adapt the task difficulty in real-time presented better motor learning results compared to the non-adaptive systems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Li et al. (2025)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Distribution checks confirmed equivalent proportions of novice, intermediate, and advanced players in both groups, demonstrating that the stratified randomization procedure successfully balanced experience variability.

    “Distribution checks confirmed equivalent proportions of novice, intermediate, and advanced players in both groups, demonstrating that the stratified randomization procedure successfully balanced experience variability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The present design was not aimed at directly testing the mediating processes of SDT, so the motivational results can be regarded as adherence to SDT principles and not as conclusive.

    “It is, however, worth noting that the present design was not aimed at directly testing the mediating processes of SDT, i.e., the satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs that are key to the establishment of causal processes in the context of SDT. Thus, the motivational results here can be regarded as the adherence to SDT principles and not as conclusive ones.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    AR-based visual feedback enhanced shooting accuracy and technique in basketball players.

    “Couture et al. (1999) proved that AR-based visual feedback enhanced the shooting accuracy and technique significantly in basketball players, and the significance of the real-time visual augmentation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Couture et al. (1999) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Assumption checks confirmed that all conditions of normality and homogeneity were met, and Greenhouse-Geisser adjustments were made.

    “Assumption checks were made to confirm that all conditions of normality and homogeneity were met, and available Greenhouse–Geisser adjustments were made.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    AR-based training in physical education increased student participation and skill-building capacities.

    “Gallie and Zhou (2020) discovered that AR-based training resulted in more active student participation and improved skill-building capacities, which favor its educational potential.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gallie and Zhou (2020)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

38 of 38

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Limited empirical evidence exists on how real-time AR feedback simultaneously influences motor skill acquisition and intrinsic motivation in team-based youth sports.

    “Although prior research has demonstrated the benefits of both augmented feedback and motivational support for performance learning, limited empirical evidence exists on how real-time AR feedback simultaneously influences motor skill acquisition and intrinsic motivation in team-based youth sports.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most available literature on AR in sports training has concentrated on individual sports, leaving little consideration for group sports.

    “To begin with, most of the available literature has concentrated on individual sports, leaving little consideration for group sports.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The effect of AR on motor learning and motivation has not been studied much.

    “Second, the effect that AR has on motor learning and motivation has not been studied much.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Research on the application of AR among young athletes is required.

    “Third, research on the application of AR among young athletes is required.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The scoring process was reliable, such that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.

    “The scoring process was very reliable that errors of the point system were not a bias of subjective judgment but actual performance differences.”
5 of 5

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(58) = 0.41reported p = .68 · recomputed p = .683

    “t(58) = 0.41, p = .68”

1 of 1

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Intervention duration is reported as both three and eight weeks

    Major

    The abstract says the groups completed the drills for three weeks, whereas the methodology specifies an eight-week intervention. This changes the reported exposure to the intervention.

  • Claimed ANOVA confidence intervals are absent from Table 8

    Minor

    The results say corresponding 95% confidence intervals are reported for the ANOVA effect sizes, but Table 8 has no confidence-interval column or values.

  • Farley study is described as an AR combat-sports intervention but cited as a review

    Minor

    The research-gap section describes Farley et al. (2020) as testing an AR system in combat sports. Its reference identifies a systematic review concerning female team-based ball players.

  • Faruk study is described as volleyball feedback but cited as elementary-school AR

    Minor

    The related-work account attributes an experiment on novice volleyball players to Faruk et al. (2025). The paper's reference for Faruk et al. instead identifies an AR-based physical-education intervention for elementary-school students.

  • Motivation-performance correlation is described as both moderate and strong

    Minor

    The results call the reported correlation moderate, then describe the relationships between motivation and performance changes as strong.

  • Overall mean age differs between the text and Table 2

    Minor

    The participant description gives a mean age of 13.5 years, but Table 2 gives an overall mean of 13.6 years.

  • Gallie and Zhou study is described as AR physical education but cited as employee research

    Minor

    The research-gap section describes an AR-based physical-education study. The listed Gallie and Zhou reference is titled as research on employee involvement, work engagement, and skill development.

  • Li study is described as adaptive hoop training but cited as a VR review

    Minor

    The related-work section attributes an adaptive AR hoop-training system to Li et al. (2025), while the listed reference is a systematic review of motion capture in virtual reality.

8 of 8

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Gallie, 2020, Employee involvement, work engagement and skill development
  2. Vansteenkiste, 2006, Self-determination theory and the explanatory role of psychological needs in human well-being
  3. Wrisberg, 2007, Sport skill instruction for coaches

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
He, X., & Wei, L.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2025-12-05
Volume
16
Pages
1661936-1661936
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1661936
PMC
PMC12714985
OpenAlex
W4417024175
Cited by
11
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 11
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
Keywords
augmented reality, real-time feedback, motor learning, intrinsic motivation, youth football, team sports, motor skill learning, dribbling, passing, shooting accuracy, verbal feedback, skill retention, Intrinsic Motivation Inventory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-02.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-02.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review