In advanced analysis, evaluating each cognitive task and data point individually is essential, rather than depending solely on simplified group metrics like the “Big 3.” This approach ensures a more precise understanding of performance nuances.
Setting Acceptable Limits
To accurately track progress, we recommend establishing a 3-5% tolerance for each performance metric.
Example:
Acceptable: A 4% slower reaction time is acceptable if accuracy improves by 6% and variability decreases by 10%.
Concerning: A reaction time slowdown of more than 5% may indicate the athlete is sacrificing too much speed.
Why This Matters
This advanced approach provides deeper insights into an athlete’s performance by highlighting specific areas of improvement or concern.
While basic analysis would suggest changes only if all metrics improve, this detailed method acknowledges meaningful progress in individual areas, leading to better-informed training decisions.
Cognitive Metric Goals and Flexibility
Metric | Goal | Permissible Flexibility | Acceptable Range for Change | Excessive Change |
Reaction Time | Improve response quickness without compromising other aspects. | Tolerate up to a 3-5% increase in reaction time. | Up to 5% slower if variation is lower. | More than 5% slower is too much. |
Speed | Enhance response speed without compromising other aspects. | Allow for 3-5% adjustment in response speed. | Up to 5% slower if variation is lower. | More than 5% decrease in speed is excessive. |
Accuracy | Maintain high level without compromise. | Tolerate up to a 3-5% decrease in accuracy. | Up to 5% if variation is lower. | More than 5% decrease in accuracy is too much. |
Variation | Achieve a balance between speed, accuracy, and consistency. | Consistency adjustments within 3-5% are acceptable. | Variability increase up to 5% is acceptable with improved reaction time & speed. | More than 5% increase in variability is too much. |
Examples of Advanced Analysis Scenarios
Analyzing advanced metrics requires understanding how different changes in performance indicators interact.
Here are several common patterns and recommended adjustments:
Scenario 1: Reaction Time No Change, Variation Improved
When an athlete’s reaction time remains unchanged but their consistency improves, it indicates a positive trend. Imagine a drum beating steadily instead of erratically. This improved consistency suggests the athlete is tightening their performance. In the next training phase, maintain this consistency while working on reducing reaction time. Balancing speed, accuracy, and consistency remains essential.
Scenario 2: Reaction Time Improved, Variation Worse
Improved reaction time with more erratic responses is not true improvement, as faster but inconsistent responses are undesirable. Focus on enhancing consistency while maintaining improved reaction times. Consider shortening task durations or using Variable Performance Feedback (VPF) mode for real-time speed comparisons to help athletes maintain consistent performance.
Scenario 3: Reaction Time Slower, Variation Improved
Slower reaction times with improved consistency indicate that the athlete is becoming more consistent. Think of a metronome ticking with a consistent rhythm. This isn’t a performance decline but rather an improvement in consistency. In the next training phase, maintain this newfound consistency while working to reduce reaction times. Athletes need to be fast, accurate, and consistent.
Scenario 4: Reaction Time No Change, Variation No Change, HRV Improved
No change in reaction time or variation, but improved Heart Rate Variability (HRV) indicates better stress management by the nervous system. This is crucial for over-trained athletes. Focus on improving response consistency and reducing reaction times. With a better-equipped nervous system, continued training should lead to positive changes in cognitive performance.
Scenario 5: Reaction Time Faster, Speed Slower
Improved reaction time but decreased overall speed suggests outliers—extremely slow responses—dragging down the average speed. This highlights inconsistencies that reaction time alone might miss. These outliers could be due to distractions or lapses in concentration. Identifying and understanding these outliers is crucial to avoid being misled by seemingly better reaction times.
Scenario 6: Reaction Time Slower, Speed Slower, Variation Higher
Slower reaction time and speed but improved variation indicate that the athlete is slower but more consistent. This is a positive development in addressing consistency issues. The next training step should focus on building speed while maintaining the new level of consistency. Athletes need to balance being fast, accurate, and consistent.
Conclusion
Each scenario demonstrates the importance of a comprehensive approach. Whether it’s maintaining consistency while working on speed or understanding the impact of outliers, deeper insights are crucial. These insights enable the creation of tailored training programs, ensuring athletes are not just fast, but also accurate and consistent.
Data tells a story. It’s neither good nor bad—it simply is. By understanding the full narrative, you can make informed decisions that truly enhance athletic performance. Embrace the depth of cognitive data and unlock the potential to push your athletes beyond their limits.