Virtual reality and sports training: decision-making, 360 video and transfer to the field, what 49 studies say

In brief. According to 49 studies, virtual reality and 360 video in a headset mainly improve the decision-making measured in the simulator or in front of a screen. Only ten trials checked the effect on a real movement or game, with mixed results, and the two that pit headset against screen on the field contradict each other. Updated November 3, 2026.

Hello to you, the movement professional,

In 2017, Rob Gray had 80 American high school baseball players, all seniors, bat against a screen 2.11 meters wide. No headset: a projector, a virtual pitcher, a ball that fades out 1.7 meters from home plate, and a real bat in their hands. Picture the swing sent at a ball you can no longer see, with a difficulty that adjusts after every success and every miss. After two 45-minute sessions a week for six weeks, this group improved more than the other three on most measures, real hitting included, then posted better league statistics the following season and reached higher levels of competition within five years (Gray, 2017).

Nine years later, in Australia, 28 young players from a semi-professional Australian football club followed four weeks of decision scenarios, randomly assigned between 360 video in a headset and the same video, flat, projected on a wall; the unavailable players formed a control group with no training. On the on-field decision test, flat video beats both other groups (Hoyne et al., 2026).

The most serious objection fits in one sentence: a headset is still a screen stuck to the eyes, and nothing guarantees that what is learned in it comes out of it. It is well founded. In these two trials, what paid off came down to how the task was built rather than to the degree of immersion. Does the rest of the literature say the same?

Virtual reality in sports training, 360 video and occlusion: three tools for decision-making

Under the words "virtual reality", studies group together different tools. Animated virtual reality builds a synthetic scene in a headset in which the athlete turns their head, moves and sometimes acts. 360-degree video, viewed in the same headset, is filmed: you look around without changing anything about what happens. A scoping review of 20 articles on decision-making in team sports distinguishes these two families and suggests computer simulation to get around the limits of 360 video, which requires filming every scenario (Jia et al., 2024). Older, screen video with temporal occlusion cuts the image just before or just after a key moment, the foot touching the ball for example, and the player announces what comes next.

All three target motor decision-making, the choice of action that precedes the movement, and anticipation, reading the opponent before the ball leaves. What separates them is the share of action left to the player: pressing a key in front of the screen, turning the head in the headset, diving or hitting on the field. The ecological framework calls this link the perception-action coupling: what you perceive is tuned to what you can do. Removing the action, as we will see, already changes what the player looks at.

Fidelity of virtual reality: does the simulator resemble the field?

Harris and colleagues propose a grid for testing a simulator before using it. The evaluation of virtual environments, they write, "too often confuses presentation and function": we judge the image instead of checking that the task provokes the behaviors of the field. For them, a good simulator is recognized by transfer, and psychological, affective and ergonomic fidelity decide it (Harris et al., 2020).

Several studies have run this test. In sub-elite soccer referees, visual behavior in the headset (search rate, fixation duration, head movements) is no different from that measured in a match, whereas it changes markedly in front of a video (van Biemen et al., 2023). In tennis, players often take the same footwork on groundstrokes in the headset as on the court, with a strong sense of presence and few side effects (Le Noury et al., 2021). Video distorts, and removing the action does so even more. Facing a penalty, goalkeepers who respond verbally or with a joystick in front of a video, or with a sketched movement on the field, mostly fixate on the kicker; when they actually attempt the save, they split their gaze between the kicker and the ball (Dicks et al., 2010). In cricket, in front of a life-size video, batters read the bowler's action, but the timing and speed of the bat's downswing change without a real ball to hit (Pinder et al., 2011), the founding argument of representative learning design.

The headset has its own distortions. It impoverishes or puts depth cues in conflict and almost entirely deprives you of touch; Harris et al. hypothesize that action there slips from control by the dorsal pathway of vision, efficient and online, toward the ventral pathway (Harris et al., 2019). In putting, the movement of the club changes in the headset, and body sway there becomes larger and more regular, a sign of more conscious postural control according to the authors, even though participants say they think less about their movements (Brock et al., 2023). In 63 participants (44 novices, 14 athletes from other disciplines and 5 expert golfers), everyone sinks more putts in the real world, the differences in putts sunk between levels disappear in the headset, and the quiet eye, the last fixation before the movement, predicts the experts' accuracy only in the real world (Bennett et al., 2025b). A simulator can reproduce a referee's gaze and distort a golfer's movement. Fidelity is checked task by task, and the trainer's question remains whole: does what is learned in the headset show up outside?

Virtual reality and transfer to the field: the trials one by one

Ten of these trials checked a real movement or game: Gray, Pagé, Michalski, Panchuk, Erişik, Hoyne, Reneker, Anguera and the two putting trials by Bennett. The clearest results come from tasks where the eye directly guides the hand: hitting, returning a ball or putting (the trials of virtual reality in table tennis have their own article). For team decision-making, Pagé et al. bring the most useful nuance: screen and headset both improve on-field decision-making for actions already seen, the headset alone for new actions.

The largest trial finds no effect in matches. In 130 university soccer players, the headset exercises, neck control and balance improve, but neither overall match performance nor injury rate differs from the other university (Reneker et al., 2020). In ice hockey, the headset warm-up does rather worse than the dual task (Brinkbäumer et al., 2026), and nine weeks of cognitive training move only the task that resembles hockey (Heilmann et al., 2025). The ranking gain of the young tennis players comes from a pilot trial whose four authors are linked to the company that sells the program (see anticipation in tennis). In soccer, Erişik et al. raise scanning with no demonstrated gain in passing (see scanning in soccer).

Virtual reality versus video: what immersion adds, and what it does not

Four trials pit the headset against a screen. Three lean toward the headset: Pagé on generalization, Fortes on passing decisions and visual search, Liu on gaze and dribbling. The fourth, with a field test and a control group, leans toward the screen: in Hoyne et al., flat video transfers to the field, 360 video does not. The authors conclude that immersion is not the mechanism of learning, that the use of perceptual information matters, and that 360 video perhaps serves mostly engagement.

Other data point the same way. In Gray's program, the group that simply batted more in the same virtual environment progressed less than the adaptive group: the setting was the same, the design of the task differed. In expert and non-expert soccer players, the first-person view of a 360 video does not change decision quality, whereas the pressure of a nearby opponent and the lack of time do (Musculus et al., 2021). In golf, gaze training improves the real putt, whether practice follows in the headset or on a real green; practicing only in the headset does not even improve the putt in the headset, whereas real practice does carry over into the headset (Bennett et al., 2025a). Watching an expert's gaze in the headset, without practicing, increases the number of putts sunk in the real world (Bennett et al., 2026).

The headset's advantage in Pagé may have a perceptual explanation: the same lab showed that university basketball players estimate the speed of videos on screen at 94.9% of reality, versus 100.7% in the headset (Richard et al., 2022). These results make a hypothesis plausible, without demonstrating it: what transfers is the information the task forces you to pick up and the response linked to it, whatever the screen. Gray already concluded that the virtual environment serves the field when it provides what real training does not allow, such as adaptive difficulty, instead of copying the usual session (see Rob Gray's work on perception-action). This lead goes straight to the oldest tool.

Temporal occlusion in video: the old tool that meta-analyses support

Temporal occlusion is first of all a test. Across 100 studies and 127 effect sizes, experts anticipate markedly better than less expert players (g = 1.15), this advantage does not carry over from one sport to another, and the anticipation score in the lab is only weakly to moderately related to real performance (Song et al., 2025). Used for training, it holds up. A meta-analysis of 12 trials and 25 effect sizes finds a large training effect, with no difference between transfer tests in video and on the field, with a publication bias that the authors cannot exclude for lack of studies (Müller et al., 2024). In soccer, 8 studies out of 10 report an improvement in anticipation or decision-making after video training (Zhao et al., 2022).

The trial closest to a match involves professional women soccer players. After twelve weeks of corner videos cut earlier and earlier, correct prediction of the landing zone rises from 54 to 68% and response time from 3.2 to 2.4 seconds; the gain fades a little but holds for six months. In matches, the share of corners with no attacker near the landing point falls from 32% to 6% between the first and second half of the season (Libreau and Benguigui, 2025). Reading it calls for caution: nine trained players, chosen because they play the offensive corners, and a team-level match measure that no control group can be compared with.

What transfers to the field, what does not

Sorted by distance between the exercise and the game, these results become readable. Near transfer, on the headset or screen task, is the rule: Fortes, Heilmann, Bloechle, Casella, Nasu, Nimmerichter. Intermediate transfer, to a real movement or a small-sided game, exists: Gray, Pagé, Michalski, Gabbett, Bennett, and Hoyne for flat video. Far transfer, competition, has only been approached by Gray (league statistics), Anguera (ranking), Libreau (team corners) and Reneker, who finds no effect in matches. Null or opposite results: Reneker 2020, Brinkbäumer 2026, Hoyne 2026 for 360 video, Panchuk 2018 in the girls, Kittel 2019b, Heilmann 2025 on general tasks, Bennett 2025a for headset practice.

Recent syntheses speak the same language. In racket sports, six trials give a mean effect of g = 0.78, with a prediction interval from -0.01 to 1.57 that includes no effect (Liu et al., 2026). Across 14 controlled studies of immersive training, the effects on decision-making and processing speed are moderate to large, but the designs are heterogeneous and the statistical power limited (Gala et al., 2026). A narrative review of 12 trials and 493 participants reports often positive effects and leaves the question of transfer open (Richlan et al., 2023). Across 20 studies in student soccer players, the authors separate what validates a test from what proves a training, and note limited transfer to the full match (Park et al., 2026). A review of 12 reviews and 46 articles finds that little is yet known about the useful frequency, duration and intensity (Witte et al., 2025).

Links between the studies

The strongest convergence concerns representativeness: when you remove the action, gaze changes, and a well-designed headset can preserve part of what happens on the field. The most fragile concerns the added value of the headset over the screen. The team that concludes flat video is enough is also the one that led the meta-analysis favorable to occlusion and signed an opinion article on designing simulators from expert anticipation (Müller et al., 2023): a coherent program, awaiting replication by other teams.

What virtual reality does not yet allow us to claim

Established: experts anticipate better on occlusion tasks, and video occlusion training improves anticipation on transfer tests, with publication bias not excluded. A decision-making test in 360 video can be reliable, with a test-retest reliability of 0.89 (intraclass correlation coefficient) in 28 referees (Kittel et al., 2019a), and the headset can reproduce a referee's field gaze. Debated: that the headset brings more than the screen; that a good test score predicts the field. In 21 elite referees, neither the 360 test nor the test on broadcast footage distinguishes the best in matches (Kittel et al., 2021); in 48 young soccer players, the 360 test assigns the right adult level reached three years later with a probability of 71% (area under the ROC curve), and the authors call for caution before using it to select (Höner et al., 2023). Extrapolation: that virtual reality makes established athletes play better in competition. Nobody can promise you that an athlete who improves in the headset will decide better on Saturday, and researchers in the field themselves call for more interactive anticipation tasks than current tests (Cañal-Bruland and Mann, 2025).

One prediction settles it. If a randomized trial, in established players, compares at equal volume the same bank of scenarios in headset and on screen, takes as its criterion the quality of decisions coded in an official match with a two-month retention, and finds no difference, the idea that immersion adds something to video falls. No trial gathered here meets these conditions.

Before putting a headset on an athlete: the eye doctor first

The headset taxes binocular vision with impoverished or contradictory depth cues (Harris et al., 2019). If your athlete reports double vision, blur that persists, headaches on exertion or dizziness, visual training waits. They see an ophthalmologist first, then an orthoptist in France, or an optometrist in Switzerland or the United States. LabO RNP is neither medical nor paramedical, and comes as a complement to a care pathway, never in its place. LabO RNP works with optometrists; the curriculum was built with them.

Perceiving and acting in the same loop: what the headset puts to the test

The eyes are an entry point. What LabO RNP teaches is the whole sensorimotor loop: how what the athlete perceives organizes what they do. Virtual reality gives a demonstration of it by omission. Remove touch or blur depth, and the golfer's posture reorganizes; remove the real save, and the goalkeeper's gaze changes target. For the place of the eyes in the warm-up, read our article on oculomotor exercises in the warm-up; for the whole range of training families, the map of the evidence in sports vision; for the question of cognitive transfer, neurocognitive training for athletes.

Headset, screen, 360 video: six questions about virtual reality in training

Does virtual reality improve sports performance?

It mostly improves what is measured in the headset. Ten trials checked a real movement or game: batting in baseball (Gray, 2017), on-field decision-making in basketball (Pagé et al., 2019) and play in table tennis (Michalski et al., 2019) improve, whereas the overall match performance of 130 university soccer players does not move (Reneker et al., 2020). In racket sports, the meta-analysis speaks of a preliminary signal (Liu et al., 2026).

Is it better to train decision-making in virtual reality or in video?

The trials contradict each other. In university basketball players, only the headset improves decision-making on new actions (Pagé et al., 2019), and in 26 young soccer players the headset does better than the screen (Fortes et al., 2021). In Australian football, flat video does better than 360 video on the field test (Hoyne et al., 2026). The design of the scenarios seems to weigh more than the screen.

What is temporal occlusion in video?

It is a video cut just before or just after a key moment, the hit or the contact, after which the player announces what comes next. As a test, it clearly separates experts from less expert players (g = 1.15 across 100 studies, Song et al., 2025). As training, it improves anticipation on video tests as well as on field tests, according to 12 trials (Müller et al., 2024).

Is 360 video in a headset virtual reality?

Studies often file it under that name, but it is filmed: the athlete looks around without acting on the scene. Animated virtual reality builds a synthetic scene with which they interact (Jia et al., 2024). The two 360 video training trials measured in play give a mixed or null result (Panchuk et al., 2018; Hoyne et al., 2026).

Can a virtual reality test spot the best players?

It can distinguish levels. In 48 young soccer players, a test of 54 360 videos separates academy from regional level, and assigns the right adult level, three years later, with a probability of 71%; the authors call for caution before using it to select (Höner et al., 2023). In 21 elite referees, a 360 test does not distinguish the best in matches (Kittel et al., 2021).

Do you need a vision assessment before using virtual reality with an athlete?

Yes. The headset taxes binocular vision with impoverished or conflicting depth cues (Harris et al., 2019). If the athlete reports double vision, blur that persists, headaches or dizziness, the ophthalmologist comes first, then the orthoptist or optometrist depending on the country. LabO RNP is neither medical nor paramedical, and comes as a complement to a care pathway, never in its place.

What transfers is built into the task and checked on the field, whatever the screen.

👉 I want to understand what my athlete perceives before choosing the tool that trains them.

By the LabO RNP team

Method. Consolidated inventory of 1,275 studies from the vision silo built on November 3, 2026 from PubMed and the LabO RNP vault notes; 167 lines there mention virtual reality, video, 360, occlusion or simulation (keyword screening, including many observational studies on video). 49 studies retained here for their direct link to training decision-making in a headset or on a screen, simulator fidelity and recent reviews; four studies on the fidelity of virtual reality (Harris 2019 and 2020, Brock 2023, Musculus 2021) were added through a targeted PubMed search. Excluded: studies with no sports transfer or decision-making measure, and those that belong to the care pathway. Every PMID and every DOI was checked against the PubMed record on November 3, 2026.

Sources

• Anguera JA, Choudhry A, Seaman M, Fedele D (2025). Assessing the Impact of a Virtual Reality Cognitive Intervention on Tennis Performance in Junior Tennis Players: Pilot Study. JMIR Form Res, 9, e66979. PMID 39918854. doi:10.2196/66979

• Bennett JB, Neumann DL, Stainer MJ (2025a). Quiet Eye Training in Virtual Reality and in the Real-World. Hum Mov Sci, 102, 103370. PMID 40482604. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2025.103370

• Bennett JB, Neumann DL, Stainer MJ (2025b). Get in the Virtual Hole! Examination of Gaze and Performance of Experts, Athletes, and Novices While Putting in Virtual Reality and in the Real-World. Eur J Sport Sci, 25(9), e70049. PMID 40884421. doi:10.1002/ejsc.70049

• Bennett JB, Neumann DL, Stainer MJ (2026). Showing Eye Movement Modelling Examples in Virtual Reality Increases Quiet Eye Duration and Improves Real World Motor Skill Performance. Percept Mot Skills, 133(5), 1339-1365. PMID 41146558. doi:10.1177/00315125251392995

• Bloechle JL, Audiffren J, Sauthier Q, Mertenat Q, Waeber Y, Aebischer D, Bresciani JP (2025). Perceptual Training in Ice Hockey: Bridging the Eyes-Puck Gap Using Virtual Reality. Sports Med Open, 11(1), 38. PMID 40220079. doi:10.1186/s40798-025-00840-x

• Brinkbäumer M, Ahle J, Reichert L, Fleddermann MT, Zentgraf K (2026). Acute effects of virtual-reality and dual-task warm-up on game-related speed paradigms in elite ice hockey athletes. Front Sports Act Living, 8, 1766605. PMID 41958818. doi:10.3389/fspor.2026.1766605

• Brock K, Vine SJ, Ross JM, Trevarthen M, Harris DJ (2023). Movement kinematic and postural control differences when performing a visuomotor skill in real and virtual environments. Exp Brain Res, 241(7), 1797-1810. PMID 37222777. doi:10.1007/s00221-023-06639-0

• Cañal-Bruland R, Mann DL (2025). DyNamic Interactive Anticipation-Time for a Paradigmatic Shift. Sports Med, 55(3), 545-550. PMID 39488800. doi:10.1007/s40279-024-02135-9

• Casella A, Panacci C, Aydin M, Boccacci L, Lodi G, Greenhough B, Parsons M, Di Russo F (2025). Effects of virtual reality-based training for soccer players on anticipatory brain functions and cognitive skills. Biol Psychol, 202, 109168. PMID 41290086. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2025.109168

• Casella A, Panacci C, Filosa M, Aydin M, Boccacci L, Di Russo F (2026). The effect of sport-specific virtual reality training for soccer players on cognitive performance and related brain processing. J Sports Sci, 44(13), 1694-1707. PMID 42365598. doi:10.1080/02640414.2026.2692300

• Dicks M, Button C, Davids K (2010). Examination of gaze behaviors under in situ and video simulation task constraints reveals differences in information pickup for perception and action. Atten Percept Psychophys, 72(3), 706-20. PMID 20348577. doi:10.3758/APP.72.3.706

• Erişik K, Cerrah AO, Cinarli FS (2025). Effects of virtual reality-based cognitive and technical drills on scanning and passing performance in youth football players: a randomized controlled study. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil, 17(1), 371. PMID 41444702. doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01425-7

• Fortes LS, Almeida SS, Praça GM, Nascimento-Júnior JRA, Lima-Junior D, Barbosa BT, Ferreira MEC (2021). Virtual reality promotes greater improvements than video-stimulation screen on perceptual-cognitive skills in young soccer athletes. Hum Mov Sci, 79, 102856. PMID 34391110. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2021.102856

• Gabbett TJ, Carius J, Mulvey M (2008). Does improved decision-making ability reduce the physiological demands of game-based activities in field sport athletes? J Strength Cond Res, 22(6), 2027-35. PMID 18978606. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181887f34

• Gala FCR, Pizzoli SFM, Cè E, Repetto C (2026). Effects of immersive training on sports perceptual-cognitive skills: A systematic literature review. J Sports Sci, online ahead of print, 1-17. PMID 42610628. doi:10.1080/02640414.2026.2718641

• Gray R (2017). Transfer of Training from Virtual to Real Baseball Batting. Front Psychol, 8, 2183. PMID 29326627. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02183

• Harris DJ, Bird JM, Smart PA, Wilson MR, Vine SJ (2020). A Framework for the Testing and Validation of Simulated Environments in Experimentation and Training. Front Psychol, 11, 605. PMID 32296379. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00605

• Harris DJ, Buckingham G, Wilson MR, Vine SJ (2019). Virtually the same? How impaired sensory information in virtual reality may disrupt vision for action. Exp Brain Res, 237(11), 2761-2766. PMID 31485708. doi:10.1007/s00221-019-05642-8

• Hayashi H, Hayashi T, Ikudome S, Fukuhara K, Morishita Y, Takamido R, Cañal-Bruland R, Nakamoto H (2026). Supplementary VR batting training with slow-replay augmented feedback improves bat-ball contact precision. J Sports Sci, online ahead of print, 1-20. PMID 42817227. doi:10.1080/02640414.2026.2741470

• Heilmann F, Schubert T (2025). The influence of specific cognitive training in virtual reality on the inhibition of elite young ice hockey players. Front Sports Act Living, 7, 1682165. PMID 41245651. doi:10.3389/fspor.2025.1682165

• Höner O, Dugandzic D, Hauser T, Stügelmaier M, Willig N, Schultz F (2023). Do you have a good all-around view? Evaluation of a decision-making skills diagnostic tool using 360° videos and head-mounted displays in elite youth soccer. Front Sports Act Living, 5, 1171262. PMID 37342613. doi:10.3389/fspor.2023.1171262

• Hoyne ZG, Morris-Binelli K, Müller S, Piggott B, Chivers P, Dekker E (2026). The role of simulator immersion on learning and transfer of decision-making skill in sport. Psychol Res, 90(5), 159. PMID 42690462. doi:10.1007/s00426-026-02372-9

• Jia Y, Zhou X, Yang J, Fu Q (2024). Animated VR and 360-degree VR to assess and train team sports decision-making: a scoping review. Front Psychol, 15, 1410132. PMID 39077210. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1410132

• Kittel A, Larkin P, Elsworthy N, Spittle M (2019a). Using 360° virtual reality as a decision-making assessment tool in sport. J Sci Med Sport, 22(9), 1049-1053. PMID 30987883. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2019.03.012

• Kittel A, Elsworthy N, Spittle M (2023). The Effectiveness of Above Real Time Training for Developing Decision-Making Accuracy in Australian Football Umpires. Res Q Exerc Sport, 94(1), 64-72. PMID 34904910. doi:10.1080/02701367.2021.1939843

• Kittel A, Elsworthy N, Spittle M (2019b). Incorporating perceptual decision-making training into high-intensity interval training for Australian football umpires. J Sports Sci, 37(1), 29-35. PMID 29846131. doi:10.1080/02640414.2018.1480257

• Kittel A, Larkin P, Elsworthy N, Spittle M (2021). Transfer of 360° virtual reality and match broadcast video-based tests to on-field decision-making. Sci Med Footb, 5(1), 79-86. PMID 35073238. doi:10.1080/24733938.2020.1802506

• Larkin P, Mesagno C, Berry J, Spittle M, Harvey J (2018). Video-based training to improve perceptual-cognitive decision-making performance of Australian football umpires. J Sports Sci, 36(3), 239-246. PMID 28282740. doi:10.1080/02640414.2017.1298827

• Le Noury P, Buszard T, Reid M, Farrow D (2021). Examining the representativeness of a virtual reality environment for simulation of tennis performance. J Sports Sci, 39(4), 412-420. PMID 32951536. doi:10.1080/02640414.2020.1823618

• Libreau C, Benguigui N (2025). Improving women's team performance on corners through video training and ball trajectory anticipation. Front Psychol, 16, 1547493. PMID 40092681. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1547493

• Liu PX, Pan TY, Lin HS, Chu HK, Hu MC (2024). VisionCoach: Design and Effectiveness Study on VR Vision Training for Basketball Passing. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 30(10), 6665-6677. PMID 38015694. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2023.3335312

• Liu R, Yusof Hanafi HA, Zhong Z, Hami R (2026). Effects of virtual reality training on racket sports performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. PLoS One, 21(4), e0345541. PMID 41941444. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0345541

• Michalski SC, Szpak A, Saredakis D, Ross TJ, Billinghurst M, Loetscher T (2019). Getting your game on: Using virtual reality to improve real table tennis skills. PLoS One, 14(9), e0222351. PMID 31504070. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222351

• Müller S, Dekker E, Morris-Binelli K, Piggott B, Hoyne G, Christensen W, Fadde P, Zaichkowsky L, Brenton J, Hambrick DZ (2023). Attributes of Expert Anticipation Should Inform the Design of Virtual Reality Simulators to Accelerate Learning and Transfer of Skill. Sports Med, 53(2), 301-309. PMID 35881309. doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01735-7

• Müller S, Morris-Binelli K, Hambrick DZ, Macnamara BN (2024). Accelerating Visual Anticipation in Sport Through Temporal Occlusion Training: A Meta-Analysis. Sports Med, 54(10), 2597-2606. PMID 39102157. doi:10.1007/s40279-024-02073-6

• Musculus L, Bäder J, Sander L, Vogt T (2021). The Influence of Environmental Constraints in 360° Videos on Decision Making in Soccer. J Sport Exerc Psychol, 43(5), 365-374. PMID 34470909. doi:10.1123/jsep.2020-0166

• Nasu D, Baba T, Imamura T, Yamaguchi M, Kitanishi Y, Kashino M (2024). Virtual reality perceptual training can improve the temporal discrimination ability of swinging during softball batting. Front Sports Act Living, 6, 1332149. PMID 38450282. doi:10.3389/fspor.2024.1332149

• Nimmerichter A, Weber NJR, Wirth K, Haller A (2015). Effects of Video-Based Visual Training on Decision-Making and Reactive Agility in Adolescent Football Players. Sports (Basel), 4(1), 1. PMID 29910249. doi:10.3390/sports4010001

• Pagé C, Bernier PM, Trempe M (2019). Using video simulations and virtual reality to improve decision-making skills in basketball. J Sports Sci, 37(21), 2403-2410. PMID 31280685. doi:10.1080/02640414.2019.1638193

• Panchuk D, Klusemann MJ, Hadlow SM (2018). Exploring the Effectiveness of Immersive Video for Training Decision-Making Capability in Elite, Youth Basketball Players. Front Psychol, 9, 2315. PMID 30538652. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02315

• Park J, Ghazanfar Z, Ali SG, Jeon SW, Jung Y (2026). Virtual Reality Sensing Technologies in Student Soccer Training: A Systematic Review of Tracking Systems and Perceptual-Cognitive, Physical, Tactical, and Educational Outcomes. Sensors (Basel), 26(17), 5381. PMID 42740001. doi:10.3390/s26175381

• Pinder RA, Davids K, Renshaw I, Araújo D (2011). Manipulating informational constraints shapes movement reorganization in interceptive actions. Atten Percept Psychophys, 73(4), 1242-54. PMID 21327746. doi:10.3758/s13414-011-0102-1

• Reneker JC, Pannell WC, Babl RM, Zhang Y, Lirette ST, Adah F, Reneker MR (2020). Virtual immersive sensorimotor training (VIST) in collegiate soccer athletes: A quasi-experimental study. Heliyon, 6(7), e04527. PMID 32743105. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04527

• Richard G, Carriere JSA, Trempe M (2022). Basketball videos presented on a computer screen appear slower than in virtual reality. Cogn Process, 23(4), 583-591. PMID 35776219. doi:10.1007/s10339-022-01100-6

• Richlan F, Weiß M, Kastner P, Braid J (2023). Virtual training, real effects: a narrative review on sports performance enhancement through interventions in virtual reality. Front Psychol, 14, 1240790. PMID 37928573. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1240790

• Song T, Ye M, Teng G, Zhang W, Chen A (2025). The role of action anticipation in specific sport performance: A three-level meta-analysis and systematic review in temporal occlusion paradigm. Psychol Sport Exerc, 79, 102839. PMID 40090558. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102839

• van Biemen T, Müller D, Mann DL (2023). Virtual reality as a representative training environment for football referees. Hum Mov Sci, 89, 103091. PMID 37084551. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2023.103091

• Witte K, Bürger D, Pastel S (2025). Sports training in virtual reality with a focus on visual perception: a systematic review. Front Sports Act Living, 7, 1530948. PMID 40181931. doi:10.3389/fspor.2025.1530948

• Zhao J, Gu Q, Zhao S, Mao J (2022). Effects of video-based training on anticipation and decision-making in football players: A systematic review. Front Hum Neurosci, 16, 945067. PMID 36438631. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2022.945067