In a controlled trial, training the feet on QuickBoard also sped up reaction time in the hands. This is a training-design signal, not a performance guarantee. Engeroff et al. (2019) found this in a randomized controlled trial at Goethe University Frankfurt. Four weeks of foot-based QuickBoard training improved visuomotor choice reaction time in both the legs and the arms. Hand-based training in the same study stayed limited to the hands, with no carryover to the feet. Strength coaches deciding where to spend limited reaction-training time now have a controlled answer instead of a guess.
Does training the feet improve reaction time in the hands?
Yes, according to Engeroff 2019. Thirty-seven healthy adults, mean age 25, were split into a foot-training group, a hand-training group, and a no-training control. After four weeks, the foot-training group got faster at choice reaction time in both their feet and their hands. The hand-training group only improved in the hands. In this trial, the hand-trained group showed no carryover to the feet.
Why didn't hand training carry over to the feet?
Foot-based choice reaction training asks more of the athlete's system than a finger-tap drill does. It recruits larger, more proximal muscle groups. It also forces the athlete to process a visual cue while shifting full body weight, not just tap a button. A narrow task, like tapping a light with one hand, stayed narrow.
What does this mean for facilities choosing one reaction-training tool?
Reaction training often defaults to hand-eye tools first: wall-mounted light boards, tablet-based tap drills, reaction balls. They're familiar and easy to set up courtside. The Engeroff finding is a reason to reverse that default. A catching-sport athlete, a goalkeeper, or a wide receiver looks like an obvious candidate for hand-eye-only work. The data say the broader transfer comes from training the feet first, not skipping them because the sport looks upper-body-dominant.
QuickBoard captures foot-based reaction under full body weight, with bilateral timing down to the millisecond. A coach can see whether an athlete's dominant and non-dominant leg are reacting at the same speed. That is a finer signal than whether the group average improved. Wulf's external focus research (2001) is the mechanism underneath the protocol design. The athlete's attention stays on the visual cue on the iPad screen, not on foot placement. The Standard and Go/No-Go cognitive tasks load that decision onto a lower-body step. That starts on day one of a training block. Reactive work does not wait for late-stage conditioning.
How does this change Monday morning?
Sequence a reactive-training block feet first. Run foot-based Standard or Go/No-Go work in weeks one and two of a training cycle. Add hand-eye or sport-specific drills on top after that. For a catching or racquet sport, keep the foot-based reaction work in the program. Do not drop it once hand-eye drills start. The two are training different, only partially overlapping systems. Track bilateral asymmetry as a second data point alongside average reaction time. For example, an athlete whose dominant leg reacts noticeably faster than the non-dominant leg has a training target. The group average hides it.
Takeaways
- Engeroff 2019: four weeks of foot-based QuickBoard training improved reaction time in both the legs and the arms.
- Hand-based training in the same study improved the hands only, with no crossover to the feet.
- The study population was healthy young adults, not athletes or a fall-risk group. Treat this as a training-design signal rather than a performance guarantee.
- Facilities running only one reactive modality get broader transfer starting from the feet, not the hands.
- Track bilateral asymmetry, not just the group average. Engeroff reported group means, so a per-leg gap is yours to find.
For program design built around reactive training like this, see Sports Performance. The full Engeroff 2019 citation, along with the rest of QuickBoard's published research, is on the Research page. QuickBoard's protocol structure and the external focus model behind it are covered on the Methodology page.
Citations
- Engeroff 2019
- Wulf 2001
See QuickBoard research for full citation details.