Motor LearningNCT07914608
OPTIMAL Motor Learning in Table Tennis: A fNIRS Study
A study testing OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction in people with Motor Learning and Aging, run by National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University at 1 site in Taiwan.
Trial summary
This study investigates how OPTIMAL theory influences table tennis backhand learning in young, healthy older, and mild cognitively impaired older adults. Meanwhile, we investigate the neural mechanisms of motor skill acquisition across different ages. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Motor Learning, Aging, Coginitive Dysfunction
- What is being tested?
- OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 90 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTaiwan
- Study dates
- 1 Nov 2026to 31 Oct 2028
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
None listed.
Who cannot join
- Over 3 years of experience in other racket sports;
- A history of neurological or psychiatric disorders;
- Any musculoskeletal system diseases that might interfere with the experiment;
- Unstable cardiopulmonary function rendering them unsuitable for moderate-intensity aerobic exercise;
- Taking medications that affect the central nervous system or blood oxygen signals, such as potent sedative-hypnotics, antiepileptic drugs, or antipsychotic medications.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Taiwan1 site
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
Taipei
Hui-Ting Shih, PT, PhD, +886-921078256, huiting.shih@nycu.edu.tw
About this study
Official title: Does the OPTIMAL Theory Enhance Motor Learning and Cognitive and Sensorimotor Area Cortical Activation? A Theoretical Mechanism Validation in Young, Older Adults, and Cognitively Impaired Older Adults Novice Table Tennis Players
This study investigates how OPTIMAL theory influences table tennis backhand learning in young, healthy older, and mild cognitively impaired older adults. Meanwhile, we investigate the neural mechanisms of motor skill acquisition across different ages. This study utilizes functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to monitor brain activity. Beyond immediate performance, the research focuses on Retention (sustained skill over time) and Transfer (application to novel tasks) as critical indicators of true motor learning. To ensure objective results, a double-blind design is employed, where both participants and data analysts remain blinded to group assignments during behavioral and fNIRS data processing to minimize bias.
- Conditions
- Motor Learning, Aging, Coginitive Dysfunction
- Being tested
- OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction, Conventional Instruction (Control)
- Keywords
- fNIRS, table tennis, brain activity, OPTIMAL, motor learning, healthy aging, neuroplasticity, post-stroke rehabilitation, motor skill acquisition, cortical hemodynamics
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
OPTIMAL theory-based InstructionBehavioural
Dose: 15 blocks of practice, with each block consisting of 30 table tennis backhand strokes (Total: 450 trials).
Description: The intervention integrates three components: (1) Autonomy Support (AS): Participants choose the color of the table tennis balls. (2) Enhanced Expectancy (EE): A visual illusion is used where the target is surrounded by smaller circles, making the target appear larger to boost confidence. (3) External Focus (EF): Instructions direct attention toward the target rather than limb movements.
Conventional Instruction (Control)Behavioural
Dose: Same as Experimental group (15 blocks x 30 trials; Total: 450 trials).
Description: (1) No choice is provided (Yoked control). (2) A visual illusion is used where the target is surrounded by larger circles, making the target appear smaller. (3) Instructions focus on body mechanics, such as elbow position and swing path (Internal Focus).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Young Adults - OPTIMAL | Experimental | OPTIMAL theory-based instruction Receives: Behavioral: OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction |
| Young Adults - Control | Active comparator | Conventional instruction Receives: Behavioral: Conventional Instruction (Control) |
| Older Adults - OPTIMAL | Experimental | OPTIMAL theory-based instruction Receives: Behavioral: OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction |
| Older Adults - Control | Active comparator | Conventional instruction Receives: Behavioral: Conventional Instruction (Control) |
| MCI Older Adults - OPTIMAL | Experimental | OPTIMAL theory-based instruction Receives: Behavioral: OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction |
| MCI Older Adults - Control | Active comparator | Conventional instruction Receives: Behavioral: Conventional Instruction (Control) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Motor Performance (Accuracy Score)
Accuracy is measured with a target-centered scoring system on a 0-7 scale per ball; higher scores indicate better accuracy.
7 pts: Hit target (10 cm diameter).
6 pts: Hit zone (20 cm).
5 pts: Hit zone (30 cm).
4 pts: Hit zone (40 cm).
3 pts: Hit zone (50 cm).
2 pts: Hit opposite table surface but missed target zones.
1 pt: Ball was hit but missed the opposite table.
0 pts: Failed to hit the ball.
The performance is presented by blocks. Each block contains 30 balls. The average score of each block is calculated.
Measured: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)
Secondary outcomes (5)
Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) Activation
Change in oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) concentration (μM) in the bilateral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) during table tennis backhand task blocks.
Measured: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)
Premotor Cortex (PMC) Activation
Change in oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) concentration (μM) in the bilateral premotor cortex (PMC), measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) during table tennis backhand task blocks.
Measured: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)
Supplementary Motor Area (SMA) Activation
Change in oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) concentration (μM) in the supplementary motor area (SMA), measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) during table tennis backhand task blocks.
Measured: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)
Sensorimotor Cortex (SMC) Activation
Change in oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) concentration (μM) in the sensorimotor cortex (SMC), measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) during table tennis backhand task blocks.
Measured: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)
Self-Efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale, GSES)
Self-efficacy is measured with the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES), a 10-item self-report scale.
Each item is rated from 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true), giving a total score of 10 to 40; higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy.
Measured: Day 1 Immediately after Pre-test
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted3 Nov 2026
- Study start1 Nov 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion31 Aug 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Oct 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Motor LearningStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by National Yang Ming Chiao Tung UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 90 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Hui-Ting Shih, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07914608
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- NYCU115196AE
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 8 Oct 2026
- Last updated
- 3 Nov 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 3 Nov 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Does the OPTIMAL Theory Enhance Motor Learning and Cognitive and Sensorimotor Area Cortical Activation? A Theoretical Mechanism Validation in Young, Older Adults, and Cognitively Impaired Older Adults Novice Table Tennis Players
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07914608
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- NYCU115196AE
- Conditions
- Motor Learning, Aging, Coginitive Dysfunction
- Keywords
- fNIRS, table tennis, brain activity, OPTIMAL, motor learning, healthy aging, neuroplasticity, post-stroke rehabilitation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 90 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- National Yang Ming Chiao Tung UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Nov 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 31 Aug 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Oct 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 3 Nov 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study investigates how OPTIMAL theory influences table tennis backhand learning in young, healthy older, and mild cognitively impaired older adults. Meanwhile, we investigate the neural mechanisms of motor skill acquisition across different ages. This study utilizes functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to monitor brain activity. Beyond immediate performance, the research focuses on Retention (sustained skill over time) and Transfer (application to novel tasks) as critical indicators of true motor learning. To ensure objective results, a double-blind design is employed, where both participants and data analysts remain blinded to group assignments during behavioral and fNIRS data processing to minimize bias.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 6
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Young Adults - OPTIMAL | Experimental | Behavioral: OPTIMAL theory-based InstructionOPTIMAL theory-based instruction |
| Young Adults - Control | Active comparator | Behavioral: Conventional Instruction (Control)Conventional instruction |
| Older Adults - OPTIMAL | Experimental | Behavioral: OPTIMAL theory-based InstructionOPTIMAL theory-based instruction |
| Older Adults - Control | Active comparator | Behavioral: Conventional Instruction (Control)Conventional instruction |
| MCI Older Adults - OPTIMAL | Experimental | Behavioral: OPTIMAL theory-based InstructionOPTIMAL theory-based instruction |
| MCI Older Adults - Control | Active comparator | Behavioral: Conventional Instruction (Control)Conventional instruction |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (0 listed)
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Over 3 years of experience in other racket sports;
- A history of neurological or psychiatric disorders;
- Any musculoskeletal system diseases that might interfere with the experiment;
- Unstable cardiopulmonary function rendering them unsuitable for moderate-intensity aerobic exercise;
- Taking medications that affect the central nervous system or blood oxygen signals, such as potent sedative-hypnotics, antiepileptic drugs, or antipsychotic medications.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| OPTIMAL theory-based InstructionDose: 15 blocks of practice, with each block consisting of 30 table tennis backhand strokes (Total: 450 trials). Description: The intervention integrates three components: (1) Autonomy Support (AS): Participants choose the color of the table tennis balls. (2) Enhanced Expectancy (EE): A visual illusion is used where the target is surrounded by smaller circles, making the target appear larger to boost confidence. (3) External Focus (EF): Instructions direct attention toward the target rather than limb movements. | Behavioural | MCI Older Adults - OPTIMAL, Older Adults - OPTIMAL, Young Adults - OPTIMAL |
| Conventional Instruction (Control)Dose: Same as Experimental group (15 blocks x 30 trials; Total: 450 trials). Description: (1) No choice is provided (Yoked control). (2) A visual illusion is used where the target is surrounded by larger circles, making the target appear smaller. (3) Instructions focus on body mechanics, such as elbow position and swing path (Internal Focus). | Behavioural | MCI Older Adults - Control, Older Adults - Control, Young Adults - Control |
Primary outcome
Motor Performance (Accuracy Score)
Time frame: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)
Accuracy is measured with a target-centered scoring system on a 0-7 scale per ball; higher scores indicate better accuracy. 7 pts: Hit target (10 cm diameter). 6 pts: Hit zone (20 cm). 5 pts: Hit zone (30 cm). 4 pts: Hit zone (40 cm). 3 pts: Hit zone (50 cm). 2 pts: Hit opposite table surface but missed target zones. 1 pt: Ball was hit but missed the opposite table. 0 pts: Failed to hit the ball. The performance is presented by blocks. Each block contains 30 balls. The average score of each block is calculated.
5 secondary outcomes
Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) Activation
Time frame: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)
Premotor Cortex (PMC) Activation
Time frame: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)
Supplementary Motor Area (SMA) Activation
Time frame: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)
Sensorimotor Cortex (SMC) Activation
Time frame: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)
Self-Efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale, GSES)
Time frame: Day 1 Immediately after Pre-test
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 3 Nov 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Motor Learning
Recruiting
Motor Learning in Health and Movement Disorders: Role of Physical Activity and Advanced Devices
Healthy Individuals (Controls), Parkinson Disease
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study to Learn About the Investigational Drug Rinzimetostat (ORIC-944) in Patients With mCRPC Who Were Previously Treated With Abiraterone Acetate (Himalayas-1)
Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer
Not yet recruiting
Influence of Transcranial Electrical Stimulation on Arm and Hand Function After Cervical Spinal Cord Injury
Spinal Cord Injury
Active, not recruiting
Impact of Force Feedback in VR Training on EEG Biomarkers and Real-World Motor Performance
Motor Skills, Healthy Volunteer
Not yet recruiting
Single Session Support for Parents of Children With Neurodevelopmental Disabilities Struggling With Anxious Avoidance
Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction in people with Motor Learning and Aging, run by National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University at 1 site in Taiwan.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 0 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Nov 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Taiwan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Hui-Ting Shih, PT, PhD (+886 921 078 256, huiting.shih@nycu.edu.tw), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Motor Performance (Accuracy Score) (time frame: Day 1 Pre-test: before practice (3 blocks) Acquisition: during practice (15 blocks) Post-test: immediately after practice (3 blocks) Day 2 Retention test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks) Transfer test: at least 24 hours after Day 1 (3 blocks)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 Nov 2026.