# Effects of coach feedback and motor imagery on baseline game performance in regional junior tennis players

Nicolas Robin, Laurent Dominique, Robbin Carien, Tom Bonnin

► To cite this version:

Nicolas Robin, Laurent Dominique, Robbin Carien, Tom Bonnin. Effects of coach feedback and motor imagery on baseline game performance in regional junior tennis players. ITF Coaching and sport science review, 2025, 33 (97), 10.52383/itfcoaching.v33i97.736. [https://hal.science/hal-05425552v1](https://hal.science/hal-05425552v1)

HAL Id: hal-05425552

Submitted on 19 Dec 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Effects of coach feedback and motor imagery on baseline game performance in regional junior tennis players

Tom Bonnin¹, Robbin Carien¹, Laurent Dominique² & Nicolas Robin¹

¹ACTES Laboratory (URp5-4), University of Antilles, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Pointe-à-Pitre, France. ²IRISSE Laboratory (EA 4070), UFR of Human and Environmental Sciences, STAPS Department, University of Reunion, Le Tampon, France.

## ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of coach feedback, combined or not with imagery practice, on the performance of the baseline game in tennis. Thirty young tennis players (M = 11.54) at the regional level, were willing to participate in this study. The players were divided, by random draw, into 3 groups: Control, Feedback and Feedback+Imaging. They carried out 3 experimental phases: Pre-test (30 long balls with ball launcher and super tie-break), acquisition (12 training sessions) and post-test (identical to the pre-test). While during the sessions of the acquisition phase the participants in the Control group received no other instructions than to play at the back of the class, those in the Feedback group received feedback from the coach after each unprovoked foul and the players in the Feedback+Imaging group also had to visualize (according to an internal visual imagery modality) the success of the previous shot by taking into account the feedback given by the coach. The results of this study show that supplementing the coach's feedback with motor imagery improves its effects. We recommend that coaches use the visualization integrated into the training.

**Key words:** feedback, visualization, forehand, backhand.

Received: 19 September 2025

Accepted: 2 November 2025

Corresponding author: robin.nicolas@hotmail.fr

## INTRODUCTION

According to Martin (2018), tennis is a racquet sport that consists of hitting a ball in order to send it onto the court once more than your opponent. It involves the performance of various complex motor skills, such as forehands and backhands, the efficiency of which requires a large number of repetitions and training sessions (Akpinar et al., 2012). In order to facilitate or accelerate learning and promote performance optimization, coaches and players use strategies (Reid et al., 2007) such as feedback (Schmidt & Lee, 1999) or motor imagery, which consists of internally simulating a movement in the absence of actual execution (Robin et al., 2023). Feedback from the coach, including feedback from poor gesture execution that is used to correct the internal model or mental representation of a technical gesture (Dhawale et al., 2017), but also motor imagery (Robin & Dominique, 2025) that is performed on the basis of this same internal model, are strategies that can have a positive impact on motor performance in tennis (Martin, 2018). While a recent study has shown beneficial effects of the combination of these two strategies on performance in a precision task (i.e., passing towards a target) in football (Robin et al., 2020), we thought it would be interesting to assess whether receiving feedback from the coach about unprovoked fouls, forehands or backhands from the back of the court, and then visualizing

the success of these same movements would improve the performance of young tennis players.

The objective of the project was to evaluate the effects of the coach's feedback, combined or not with motor imagery, relating to the visualization of a corrected and successful gesture, on the performance of the baseline game in a precision test with a ball thrower but also in match conditions (i.e., super tie-break).

## METHOD

Thirty male players (M = 11.54 years old; SD = 1.47) playing tennis at a regional level for more than 4 years, playing at least 5 tournaments per year and training between 2 and 3 times a week (for a weekly duration of 4 and 5 hours), were volunteers to participate in this study. After the parents and participants signed a consent form, they were randomly assigned to 3 groups: Control (N = 10), Feedback (N = 10) and Feedback+Imaging (N = 10). This study, carried out in accordance with the latest version of the Helsinski Declaration, was approved by the ethics committee of the ACTES laboratory (Urp5-4-2024-03) of the Université des Antilles.
## PROCEDURE

This study took place at the Amicale Tennis Club in Le Gosier (France). Before the start of the experimental phase, the players made the latest French version of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire (MIQ-3f; Robin et al., 2020) to verify that none of them had difficulty doing motor imagery. Then, the participants carried out 3 experimental phases: Pre-test (6 sets of 5 balls from the bottom of the course with a lobster elite 2 type ball launcher and a super tie-break), Acquisition (12 training sessions with or without feedback and imaging) and Post-test (identical to the pre-test). While during the sessions of the acquisition phase, the participants in the Control group were only instructed to play at the back of the course, those in the Feedback group benefited from the coach's feedback (see Table 1) after each unprovoked foul, and the players in the Feedback+Imaging group also had to imagine, according to an internal visual imagery modality, succeed in the forehand or backhand by integrating the correction feedback given by the coach (State Tennis Graduate, 20 years of experience, full-time coach).

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Feedback used by the coach.</caption><thead><tr><td>Number</td><td>Correction</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>You must go through the ball and finish your swing</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>You must move in order to hit the ball at hip height</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>You must center the ball on your racket strings</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>You must recover your position, make a split step, then adjustment steps to hit the ball in the best possible conditions</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>You must lower the racket head</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>You must use this grip and hold your handle better</td></tr></tbody></table>

In the pre-test and post-test, the test performed with the ball launcher consisted of returning 30 baseline balls to the baseline area on the opposite side (see Figure 1) in order to obtain the highest possible score. The velocity of the bullets was measured with a radar gun (cordless R1000) and the performance (i.e., accuracy scores and number of errors) was recorded by the experimenters and by means of the Swingvision software (i.e., speed of keystrokes, number of rallies, number of errors) during the super-tie-breaks.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Accuracy scores with the ball launcher during pre-tests and post-tests.</figcaption></figure>

Dependent variables (hitting speeds, accuracy scores and number of errors at the pitcher; percentage of rallies between 5 and 8 balls, percentage of balls from baseline and percentage of unforced errors in super-tie-breaks) were

normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests). These variables were subjected to repeated measures ANOVAS (Pre-test versus Post-test) with independent groups (Control versus Feedback versus Feedback+Imaging), calculated with the Statistica software. Post-hoc analyses (Newman-Keuls test) and an alpha cut-off of .05 were used.

## RESULTS

The ANOVA performed on the pitcher's strike speeds did not reveal any significant differences between groups or between tests (all p >.05).

The ANOVA on pitcher accuracy scores showed on the one hand that players in the Feedback and Feedback+Imaging groups improved their performance between pre-test and post-test (p <.05), and that the performance of the Feedback+Imaging group was superior to that of the other groups at the post-test (p <.05; see Figure 2A).

The ANOVA on the number of fouls, on the ball thrower, revealed that players in the Feedback+Imaging and Feedback groups decreased their number of fouls between pre-test and post-test (p <.01), and that players who benefited from motor imagery in addition to feedback (i.e., Feedback+Imaging group) made fewer mistakes, post-test, than those in the Control group (p <.05) as shown in Figure 2B.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Ball pitcher performance scores (A) and number of fouls (B) for participants in the Control (black) and Feedback (gray) and Feedback+Imaging (black) groups, during pre- and post-tests (*p <.05).</figcaption></figure>

The ANOVA made on the percentages of rallies between 5 and 8 balls, during the super-tie-breaks, did not show any significant difference between the tests or between the groups (all the p >.05), knowing that players obtained the following percentages: Control (M=14%), Feedback (M=18%) and Feedback+Imaging (M=20%), in the post-test.

The ANOVA on the percentages of baseline shots, during super-tie-breaks, showed that players in the Feedback and Feedback+Imaging groups improved their performance between the pre-test and the post-test (p < .05). In addition, the Feedbacks group performed better than the Control group (p <.05), and finally those of the Feedback+Imaging group were superior to the performance of the other two groups at the post-test (see Figure 3A).

The ANOVA carried out on the percentages of unprovoked fouls during the super-tie-breaks showed that the players in the Feedback and Feedback+Imaging groups improved their performance between the pre-test and the post-test (p <.05), and that their percentage of mistakes was lower than that of the Control group at post-test (p <.05), as shown in Figure 3B.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Percentages of strokes at the bottom of the court (A) and percentages of unprovoked fouls (B) during super-tie-breaks for players in the Control (in black) and Feedback (in grey) and Feedback+Imaging (in black) groups, during pre-tests and post-tests (*p* < .05).</figcaption></figure>

## DISCUSSION

The objective of this original study was to evaluate the effects of coach feedback, combined or not with motor imagery practice, consisting of visualizing a corrected forehand or backhand, on the performance of the baseline game in a precision task performed with a ball thrower and during a super-tie-break.

First, the results of this study show beneficial effects of the coach's feedback on the performance of the game from the back of the course to the ball thrower and in match conditions. Indeed, the players in the Feedback group obtained better scores and made fewer fouls on the ball thrower, but also made more baseline shots and made fewer unforced fouls, than the participants in the Control group during the post-test. These results confirm the data in the literature showing the importance of coach feedback in improving motor learning and sports performance (Smith & Ward, 2006; Schmidt & Lee, 1999; Tsetzis & Votsis, 2006), particularly in racquet sports (Tzetzis et al., 2008) and more specifically in tennis (Morales & Martinez-Gallego, 2022). As mentioned by Robin et al. (2020), feedback can guide players by helping them to reinforce or correct their mental representations of the actions they perform. Providing verbal cues about corrections to their movements for subsequent trials is particularly beneficial for non-experts (Kernodle & Carlton, 1992), as was the case for the young players who participated in this study. In tennis, the coaches' "eye" and expertise are essential to analyse performance, identify mistakes and provide appropriate feedback allowing players to progress by correcting their mistakes (Schönborn, 2000).

Secondly, the results of this study showed that motor imagery made it possible to optimize the performance of the baseline game in tennis. These results confirm the interest of motor imagery in improving sports performance (Toth et al., 2020), particularly in tennis (for review see Robin & Dominique, 2025) and more specifically with regard to the baseline game (Robin et al., 2025). On the other hand, these results confirm the interest of supplementing the coach's feedback with the visualization of a successful action (Robin et al., 2020). Indeed, the results of this study showed that the players in the Feedback+Imaging group obtained higher scores than the post-test with the ball launcher and sent more balls to the back of the court during the super-tie-break than those in the Control group but also those in the Feedback group. These results confirm the results of previous studies that have observed beneficial effects of a combination of feedback and motor imagery on accuracy in a passing task in football (Robin

et al., 2020) or during the plunged start in swimming (Robin et al., 2023). The authors mentioned that benefiting from feedback from an expert such as the tennis coach, before visualization, allowed players to perform motor imagery based on mental representations of corrected gestures, thus optimizing the athletes' performance.

It is necessary to emphasize that this study is not without limitations. Indeed, although equivalent to that of previous research that has used similar protocols (e.g., Cherappurath et al., 2020; Guillot et al., 2013; Robin et al., 2025), the number of participants could be considered to be relatively small. For this reason, the results of this study must be confirmed with larger samples of participants before any generalization. In addition, it is also possible that the players in the Control group were less motivated than those in the Feedback and Feedback+Imaging groups due to the experimental conditions (Robin et al., 2020) and instructions involving a passive attitude towards the baseline fouls committed during training sessions.

## CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed on the one hand that tennis players who benefited from the coach's feedback improved their baseline game performance in a precision event with the ball thrower but also in a match situation (i.e., super-tie-break), and on the other hand that visualization increased the positive effects. Although this research needs to be confirmed by studies with larger sample sizes, we recommend that coaches use motor imagery integrated into training, in addition to the feedback they give to players, in order to improve the performance of the baseline game.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND FUNDING

No conflict of interest is to be declared for this study, which did not receive any funding.

## THANKS

We would like to thank the tennis players who participated in this study as well as the management of the Amicale Tennis Club for their logistical support, and Patrick for his technical expertise.

## REFERENCES

* Akpinar, S., Devrilmez, E., & Kirazci, S. (2012). Coincidence-anticipation timing requirements are different in racket sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 115(2), 581-593. https://doi.org/10.2466%2F30.25.27.PMS.115.5.581-593.

* Cherappurath, N., Elayaraja, M., Kabeer, D.A., Anjum, A., Vogazianos, P., & Antoniades, A. (2020). PETTLEP imagery and tennis service performance: an applied investigation. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 15(1), 20190013. https://doi.org/10.1515/jirspa-2019-0013.

* Dhawale, A.K., Smith, M.A., & Ölveczky, B.P. (2017). The role of variability in motor learning. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 479-498. PubMed ID: 28489490 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031548

* Fonseca Morales, A., & Martinez-Gallego, R. (2022). Feedback and learning in tennis: Conceptualisation, classification, and practical implications. ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review, 30(88), 49-52. https://doi.org/10.52383/itfcoaching.v30i88.368

* Guillot, A., Desliens, S., Rouyer, C., & Rogowski, I. (2013). Motor imagery and tennis serve performance: The external focus efficacy. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 12(2), 332-338.

* Kernodle, M.W., & Carlton, L.G. (1992). Information feedback and the learning of multiple degree of freedom activities. Journal of Motor Behaviour, 24, 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1992.9941614.
Martin, C. (2018). Tennis: performance optimization. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur.

Reid, M., Crespo, M., Lay, B., & Berry, J. (2007). Skill acquisition in tennis: research and current practice. Journal of Science and Medicine in sport, 10(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2006.05.011

Robin, N., Coudevylle, G.R., Guillot, A., & Toussaint, L. (2020). French translation and validation of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-third Version (MIQ-3f), Movement and Sport Science, 108, 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2019035

Robin, N., & Dominique, L. (2025). Mental imagery and tennis: A review, applied recommendations and new research directions. Movement and Sports Sciences, 127, 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2022009

Robin, N., Carien, R., Ouarti, Y., & Laurent, D. (2025). Beneficial effects of imagination of successful action after an actual error on baseline performances in non-expert young tennis players. Psychological Research, 89(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-02051-7

Robin, N., Carien, R., Dominique, L., Hatchi, V., & Hue, O. (2023). Beneficial effect of a combination of feedback, observation and motor imagery on the performance of the plunged start in swimming. Movement & Sport Sciences - Science & Motor Skills, 119(1), 19-27. https://shs.cairn.info/revue-movement-and-sport-sciences-2023-1-page-19?lang=fr

Robin, N., Ishihara, T., Guillet-Descas, E., & Crespo, M. (2023). Editorial: Performance optimization in racket sports: The influence of psychological techniques, factors, and strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1140681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1140681

Robin, N., Toussaint, L., Joblet, E., Roublot, E., & Coudevylle, G.R. (2020). The beneficial influence of combining motor imagery and coach's feedback on soccer pass accuracy in intermediate players. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 8(2), 262-279.

Schmidt, R.A., & Lee, T.D. (1999). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Schönborn, R. (2000). Advanced Techniques for Competitive Tennis (2nd ed.). Aachen: Meyer & Meyer Sport.

Smith, S. L., & Ward, P. (2006). Behavioral interventions to improve performance in collegiate football. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(3), 385-391. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2006.5-06

Toth, A.J., McNeill, E., Hayes, K., Moran, A.P., & Campbell, M. (2020). Does mental practice still enhance performance? A 24 year follow-up and meta-analytic replication and extension. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 48, 101672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101672

Tzetzis, G., & Votsis, E. (2006). Three feedback methods in acquisition and retention of badminton skills. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102, 275-284. PubMed ID: 16671629. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.102.1.275-284

Tzetzis, G., Votsis, E., & Kourtessis, T. (2008). The effect of different corrective feedback methods on the outcome and self-confidence of young athletes. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 7, 371-378.

Copyright © 2025 Tom Bonnin1, Robbin Carien, Laurent Dominique & Nicolas Robin

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

This text is under a Creative Commons BY 4.0 license

You are free to Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format - and Adapt the content - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially under the following terms:

Attribution: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

CC BY 4.0 license terms summary. CC BY 4.0 license terms

RECOMMENDED ITF TENNIS ACADEMY CONTENT (CLICK BELOW)

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>