ClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT07914608Updated Nov 3, 2026

OPTIMAL Motor Learning in Table Tennis: A fNIRS Study

An interventional study of OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction and Conventional Instruction (Control) in Motor Learning, Aging and Coginitive Dysfunction, sponsored by National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Taiwan. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-03.

Sponsored by National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science

Updated Nov 3, 2026Newly registeredGo to Updates ↓
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
90
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study 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. 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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Motor Learning
  • Aging
  • Coginitive Dysfunction

Keywords

  • fNIRS
  • table tennis
  • brain activity
  • OPTIMAL
  • motor learning
  • healthy aging
  • neuroplasticity
  • post-stroke rehabilitation
  • motor skill acquisition
  • cortical hemodynamics
03

In context

Lead sponsor

National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University is the lead sponsor of 208 studies on the registry; 60 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Eligibility criteria

Healthy young adults are aged between 18 and 30 years, while healthy older adults and older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are aged between 65 and 80 years. Regarding cognitive criteria, healthy young adults and healthy older adults must score 24 or higher on the (MMSE). Older adults with MCI must further meet the following diagnostic criteria for MCI:

  1. Subjective cognitive decline: The participants themselves or their family members/primary caregivers report a decline in memory or cognitive function.
  2. Objective cognitive impairment: The education-adjusted score on the Taiwanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-T) is between 20 and 23. One point is added to the total MoCA-T score for individuals with less than 12 years of education. Considering the heterogeneity in education levels among Taiwan's older generation, if a participant has 6 or fewer years of education (elementary school or below) or is illiterate, the Chinese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Basic (MoCA-B) will be administered as a supplement. This is to reduce false-positive interference on the visuospatial and executive function subtests caused by a low educational level.
  3. Preserved activities of daily living: The score on the Compensatory Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL-C) scale ranges from 1.34 to 3.06, indicating that the participant possesses the ability to live independently and has not reached the level of dementia.

In addition to the age and cognitive requirements, participants across all three groups must meet the following inclusion criteria:

  1. Right-handed, with an Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) score > 40;
  2. Table tennis beginners who have never received professional table tennis instruction;
  3. Played table tennis less than once a month in the past year;
  4. Normal hearing and normal or corrected-to-normal vision.

Exclusion criteria include:

  1. Over 3 years of experience in other racket sports;
  2. A history of neurological or psychiatric disorders;
  3. Any musculoskeletal system diseases that might interfere with the experiment;
  4. Unstable cardiopulmonary function rendering them unsuitable for moderate-intensity aerobic exercise;
  5. Taking medications that affect the central nervous system or blood oxygen signals, such as potent sedative-hypnotics, antiepileptic drugs, or antipsychotic medications.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

MMSE and MoCA

Short tests of memory and thinking, each scored out of 30. Lower scores suggest more difficulty; criteria give a range, either to include people with memory problems or to leave them out.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Basic science
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
90 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Young Adults - OPTIMAL

    OPTIMAL theory-based instruction

    Behavioral: OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction

  • Active comparator
    Young Adults - Control

    Conventional instruction

    Behavioral: Conventional Instruction (Control)

  • Experimental
    Older Adults - OPTIMAL

    OPTIMAL theory-based instruction

    Behavioral: OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction

  • Active comparator
    Older Adults - Control

    Conventional instruction

    Behavioral: Conventional Instruction (Control)

  • Experimental
    MCI Older Adults - OPTIMAL

    OPTIMAL theory-based instruction

    Behavioral: OPTIMAL theory-based Instruction

  • Active comparator
    MCI Older Adults - Control

    Conventional instruction

    Behavioral: Conventional Instruction (Control)

Interventions

  • BehavioralOPTIMAL theory-based Instruction

    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.

  • BehavioralConventional 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).

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. 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.

    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)

Secondary outcomes

  1. 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.

    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)

  2. 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.

    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)

  3. 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.

    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)

  4. 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.

    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)

  5. 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.

    Time frame: Day 1 Immediately after Pre-test

Other outcomes

  1. Manipulation Check

    A questionnaire verifying whether participants perceived the assigned experimental manipulations (autonomy support, enhanced expectancies, and attentional focus). It consists of 19 items rated mainly on 0-10 scales (items 10-11 on a 0-100% scale); higher scores indicate stronger agreement or greater perception of the corresponding construct.

    Time frame: Day 1 After Post-test Day 2 After Transfer test

07

Study locations

1 site
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
Registered
First appeared on the registry. No changes since
Nov 3, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Nov 3, 2026
    First appeared on the registry

From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07914608
Responsible party
Hui-Ting Shih (Assistant Professor, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Nov 3, 2026
Start date
Nov 1, 2026 (estimated)
Primary completion
Aug 31, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Oct 31, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Nov 3, 2026

Study contacts

Hui-Ting Shih, PT, PhD
Contact
huiting.shih@nycu.edu.tw
+886 921 078 256

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion