Published research on QuickBoard.

A 4-week choice foot speed and choice reaction training program improves agility in previously non-agility trained, but active men and women. Published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. Run at the University of Memphis. Twenty-three active adults who were new to agility training took part. They were not competitive athletes. The device was the Quick Feet board, an earlier QuickBoard model.

How QuickBoard was used: The Quick Board, LLC provided funding and the equipment. Participants trained on QuickBoard, and the board's tests measured foot speed and reaction time. The change-of-direction test was run off the board.

Eleven adults trained foot speed and choice reaction on the board for four weeks. Twelve others did no training. The trained group improved foot speed by 26% and reaction time by 19%. The training also transferred to a separate change-of-direction test that was not part of the program. The trained group cut about 0.45 seconds, roughly 7%, from an electronically timed 20-meter course run off the board. The control group did not improve on any of the tests. The three tests measured partly different skills. The authors found the board accurate and reliable for measuring foot speed and reaction time. They call for follow-up studies in competitive athletes.

Read the abstract, J Strength Cond Res 2008;22(6):1901-1907 (PubMed)

Assessment of fatigue in Division I female soccer players by weekly measurement of cognitive speed and power output. A master's thesis by Lisa Christine Martin at the University of Louisville. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article. Seventeen Division I women's soccer players were tested once a week through one season. There was no control group. Reaction time was measured on a QuickBoard.

The thesis asked which weekly test best matched signs of fatigue: jump height, jump power or reaction time. Slower reaction times went along with more self-reported stress symptoms. Over the season, reaction times got faster, and stress symptoms and effort ratings fell. On average the players did not build up fatigue, so there was little fatigue for any test to track. The author calls it a pilot that shows early promise for reaction time as a fatigue check.

Read the thesis record, University of Louisville (ThinkIR)

Explaining upper or lower extremity crossover effects of visuomotor choice reaction time training. Published in Perceptual and Motor Skills. A randomized controlled trial at Goethe University Frankfurt, with no QuickBoard staff among the authors. Healthy young adults, average age 24.6, were randomly assigned to one of three groups. For four weeks, 12 trained with the feet, 12 trained with the hands, and 13 served as controls. The abstract names only "a computerized training device." The same team's 2021 paper on these participants names it as QuickBoard.

Foot training sped up choice reaction time in the feet, and the gain carried over to the hands. Hand training improved the hands and a cognitive choice reaction test, but did not carry over to the feet. Neither kind of training changed attention, executive function, memory or working memory. Population studied: healthy, active young adults. Not athletes, and not a fall-risk or neuro population.

Read the paper, Percept Mot Skills 2019;126(4):675-693 (PubMed)

Blog: why training feet also speeds up hand reaction time

The impact of computerized agility training on basketball performance: a comparative study with rope ladder training. Published in Frontiers in Physiology. Randomized research at Dalian University, China. The paper states no QuickBoard role in its design, funding or authorship. The 64 men's college basketball players, ages 18 to 24, trained three times a week for four weeks. Half (32) trained on QuickBoard. The other 32 did agility ladder training, which moved from ladder drills in week 1 to other agility drills in weeks 2 to 4. Both programs matched session count, session length and heart-rate target.

On the Agility T-Test, QuickBoard players cut their time 5.4%, more than double the 2.3% cut by the agility ladder group. The Agility T-Test was not one of the training drills, though both programs included change-of-direction work. The training also carried over to a basketball skill test run off the board. QuickBoard players improved reaction time 7x as much, 9.8% vs 1.4% for the agility ladder group. They cut total skill-test time 7x as much, 2.1% vs 0.3%. On the board's own tests, QuickBoard players gained more foot speed, 7.0% vs 2.4%. They also cut choice reaction time more, 6.9% vs 0.7%. Accuracy improved in both groups, with no real difference between them. There was no follow-up after the four weeks.

Read the paper, Front Physiol 2026;17:1772554 (Frontiers)

Computerized agility training improves change-of-direction and balance performance independently of footwear in young adults. Published in Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. Run by the University of Memphis. The QuickBoard, LLC supplied the boards but did not fund the study. Thirty recreationally active young adults, average age 22.8, were split at random into barefoot, minimal-shoe and regular-shoe groups. All three groups did the same six weeks of QuickBoard training. Population studied: recreationally active, nonathletic young adults. Not athletes, and not older adults, patients or neuro populations.

All groups got faster on a change-of-direction test. Reach balance and eyes-open single-leg stability also improved, starting as early as two weeks in. Eyes-closed stability did not improve. Footwear made no difference. The journal issued a correction in 2017 to the balance reach values in one table.

Read the abstract, Res Q Exerc Sport 2017;88(1):44-51 (PubMed)

A technical report on the development of a real-time visual biofeedback system to optimize motor learning and movement deficit correction. Published in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. From Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, the University of Cincinnati and UNC Chapel Hill. Eleven healthy female high school volleyball players each did one lab session, with no control group. The authors disclose potential royalties from the feedback system. QuickBoard is not named in it.

The athletes did 40 bodyweight squats with a live display tracking four ACL injury-risk measures. Afterward, they squatted closer to the target pattern, even with the display off. In drop jumps, 3 of 7 landing measures improved. After a correction for running many tests, only the drop in knee extensor load held up. The authors say that without a control group, they cannot be sure the feedback caused the gains.

Read the paper, J Sports Sci Med 2020;19(1):84-94 (PubMed Central)

Effects of a reactive exercise intervention on stroke patients, an exploratory study. An exploratory pilot study of ten patients at the University of Memphis testing a reactive cognitive-motor exercise program against a control group that continued regular activities with no additional organized exercise program, in post-stroke patients. This is a conference poster, not a peer-reviewed journal article.

How QuickBoard was used: The intervention group did a reactive exercise program on QuickBoard. The university bought and owns its QuickBoards, and the study was unfunded.

The QuickBoard group significantly improved on the modified Rankin Scale, a clinical stroke-recovery measure, while the control group did not. Balance testing showed a trend toward greater improvement in the QuickBoard group but did not reach statistical significance. Reaction time was not measured in this study.