Use of ball projection machines in the acquisition of interceptive skill has recently been questioned. The use of projection machines in developmental and elite fast ball sports programmes is not a trivial issue, since they play a crucial role in reducing injury incidence in players and coaches. A compelling challenge for sports science is to provide theoretical principles to guide 'how' and 'when' projection machines might be used for acquisition of ball skills and preparation for competition in developmental and elite sport performance programmes. In this article, we propose how principles from an ecological dynamics theoretical framework could be adopted by sports scientists, pedagogues and coaches to underpin the design of interventions, practice and training tasks, including the use of hybrid video-projection technologies. The assessment of representative learning design during practice may provide ways to optimize developmental programmes in fast ball sports and provide information on the principled use of ball projection machines.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,648,728
of 28,492,262 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#1,843
of 3,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,108
of 200,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#329
of 881 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,492,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,123 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 60.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 200,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 881 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
