Video Analysis Application to Assess the Reaction Time in an

ATP Tennis Tournament

Lucio Caprioli

, Francesca Campoli

, Saeid Edriss

, Elvira Padua

, Emilio Panichi

Cristian Romagnoli

, Giuseppe Annino

and Vincenzo Bonaiuto

Sports Engineering Lab., Dept. Industrial Eng. Univ. Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

Dept. of Human Science & Prom. of Quality of Life, San Raffaele Rome Univ., Rome, Italy

Dept. of Medicine Systems, Univ. Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

Keywords: Video Analysis, Tennis, Reaction Time, Visual Anticipation, ATP Tennis Tournament.

Abstract: 2D Video analysis is often used in tennis to analyze the players' technique or issues related to game tactics.

This paper applies video analysis to assess the reaction time in tennis matches. Fifteen subjects were examined

(26.20 ± 4.75 years old, weight 79.13 ± 5.67 kg, height 184.40 ± 5.30 cm, BMI 23.26 ± 1.19), all with an ATP

ranking between the #130 position and the #1066 position updated on the day of the sampling. The average

RT was 0.248 ± 0.07 s. The longer reaction times were recorded at the first stroke after the serve, while the

shorter were in defensive situations when the opponent was attacking or playing a volley, and the examined

player often anticipate by starting the mouvement even before the opponent's stroke. The reaction times of

high-level tennis players were found to be very short, often less than 120ms in defensive actions. These results

prompt us to consider the importance of kinetic perceptual skills such as reaction speed and anticipation in

tennis training.

1 INTRODUCTION

In tennis, many physical and mental (Casale, 2003;

Castellani Alberto et al., 1996; Cei Alberto, 2015;)

abilities are involved in the performance of high-level

athletes, who are called upon to solve complex motor

problems in a short-time through sprints and

explosive actions often performed in precarious

balance (Issurin, 2010; Matveev, 2001). Indeed, it

appears that, by the tennis players' performance

model, various coordinative and perceptive kinetic

abilities, such as reaction, anticipation, and

transformation, play a fundamental role (Fox et al.,

1993; Schönborn, 1999). Scanning signals in

advance, such as understanding the spot on the court

where the opposing tennis player is about to address

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4049-5225

https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1342-5881

https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0224-8294

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5227-2567

https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6591-1147

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0904-634X

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8578-6046

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2328-4793

the ball, allow one to be in the right place and at the

right time to mechanically implement and promote

attack strategies (Singer & Negri, 1984). Reaction

ability is the coordinative ability to react quickly (as

quickly as possible) and correctly to given stimuli.

The reaction time (RT) is the latency period between

the occurrence of a stimulus and its response action

(Koch et al., 2018; Schmidt & Lee, 2019; Sternberg,

1969), and is given by five components:

a. production of a stimulus in the sensory receptor;

b. transmission of the stimulus to the Central

Nervous System;

c. processing (evaluation of the stimulus, choice of

response, and formation of the effector signal);

d. sending effector signal to the muscle;

e. muscle response (Janssen, 2015; Zelaznik, 1996).

Caprioli, L., Campoli, F., Edriss, S., Padua, E., Panichi, E., Romagnoli, C., Annino, G. and Bonaiuto, V.

Video Analysis Application to Assess the Reaction Time in an ATP Tennis Tournament.

DOI: 10.5220/0012184900003587

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support (icSPORTS 2023), pages 151-157

ISBN: 978-989-758-673-6; ISSN: 2184-3201

151

Simple and choice RT can be achieved in sports. In

the first case, the reaction is predefined, and a precise

and well-known motor plan corresponds to the

stimulus. Simple RT is often automated, and thus any

processing time is absent (it involves eliciting simple

conditioned reflexes to decrease the period between

stimulus and response). During choice RT, it is

necessary to perform a counter action appropriate to

the situation, which is unexpected, that is being

determined. The choice RT is always longer than the

simple RT because there is a cognitive-rational

processing phase between the perception of the

stimulus and the execution of the motor action. In

particular, it depends on the number of variables, that

is, the number of possible stimulus-response

alternatives. HICK's law describes the relationship

between the logarithm of the number of stimulus-

response options and RT; it shows that as the number

of stimulus-response pairs increases, RT increases

proportionally (Janssen, 2015; Proctor & Schneider,

2018). In reading the INPUT, being able to choose,

among many, the most helpful information is a more

relevant cognitive factor, which can allow for early

reading of what is about to happen. That is why in the

competition, the perception can occur before and

during the stimulus. Motor anticipation is the ability

to intuit a movement from the form of the action that

precedes it (Meinel et al., 1984). There are two forms

of motor anticipation, and the first is based on the

experience of prior game situations, such as an

opponent's tendency to serve wide from the left can

prompt the responding player to anticipate the move,

or visual anticipation, which is based on the visual

reading of the opponent's movement. Visual

anticipation is the ability to make accurate predictions

from partial or incomplete visual information

(Montagne et al., 2008). Examples of such

information might be the direction of a player's gaze

as they are about to shoot a penalty, the tennis player's

throwing of the ball on serve, the position of the feet,

or the movement of the racket and trunk before

impact (Shimizu et al., 2019). In other disciplines,

such as basketball, it has been found that athletes

more successfully predict the direction of free throws

to the basket with greater anticipation and accuracy

than other individuals (like coaches or sports

journalists and novices) (Aglioti et al., 2008). Visual

anticipation is fundamental in the motor response

process of the tennis player and is proportional to the

athlete's level of experience. In recent years, some

research has been conducted to understand what

factors most influence these perceptual processes in

sports. In studies performed with spatial occlusion of

the opponent's body parts (legs, trunk, arms, and

racket, etc.) worse accuracy and slower response

times were found in videos with occlusion of the ball

and trunk (Costa et al., 2023). Anticipation can also

be observed in an isolated act, such as correctly

predicting the speed and placement of a thrown object

(e.g., a ball) that allows the athlete to be in the right

place to repel or intercept it (Meinel et al., 1984;

Shimizu et al., 2019). During training, reaction and

anticipation skills can be trained with the help of new

technological aids (Senatore & Buzzelli, 2022).

Several research studies on reaction speed have been

conducted in the last two decades, and various off-

field measurement tools exist. However, there is not

as extensive a description of systems for measuring

reaction speed during competition, at least in tennis.

Video-based methods for testing RT have been used

successfully in some sports, such as karate, in

previous publications (Mudric et al., 2015).

2 METHODS

This paper uses video analysis to measure and

evaluate RT in tennis matches made by fifteen male

professional players during the ATP Challenger

"Castel del Monte" tournament in November 2022

(ATP Tour, 2022), played on indoor hard court

surface, with Artengo TB930 balls. The sample of

players had an age of 26.20 ± 4.77 years, weight of

79.13 ± 5.67 kg, height of 184.40 ± 5.30 cm, and body

mass index of 23.26 ± 1.19. All subjects had an ATP

ranking between the #130 and #1066 positions

updated on the day the measurements were done. The

analysis was conducted using video analysis software

(BIOMOVIE ERGO, 2023) on video acquired at 240

fps by a WOLFANG Action Camera that was placed

behind the central court. For the measurement of RT,

the time between the impact of the opposing player

and the first movement of the examined player was

measured (the first movement coincides with the

rotation of the shoulder line in the direction of the

displacement, of the foot descending from the split-

step or with a counter-movement of the contralateral

leg). The impact of the opponent (the starting point of

the ball) was taken as the zero point in the timeline

because it is the stimulus to which the player reacts.

The player's first movement is mainly evidenced by

the rotation of the inside foot in the direction of the

displacement on landing or in the moments

immediately following the split step (Fish, 1983).

icSPORTS 2023 - 11th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

152

Figure 1: First movement lateral shift to the right.

Figure 2: First movement lateral shift.

This shift can occur in the direction of the

displacement or in the opposite direction to unbalance

the weight of the body in that direction (counter-

movement) with either the inside or outside foot

(Figure 1, Figure 2) (Vuong et al., 2022). Four main

types of step patterns are encountered: the Jab Step

(Figure1, Figure3d), Pivot Step (Figure2), Gravity

Step, and Counter Step (Figure3f). The Jab Step tends

to be the most common and most efficient in small

movements, and the Counter Step, on the other hand,

has been found by recent studies to be the most

effective in jerking to retrieve difficult balls (Vuong

et al., 2022).

Video Analysis Application to Assess the Reaction Time in an ATP Tennis Tournament

153

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

Figure 3: (a), (c), and (e) flight phase during the split step of three different players; (b), (d), and (f) first movement.

(

)

(

)

(

)

Figure 4: First displacement detected by racket movement in response shot: a) split step, b) landing, c) first movement.

In other cases, the first movement is evidenced by the

rotation of the shoulders (UNIT-TURN) (Fish, 1983;

Groppel et al., 1986) or the opening of the racket

(Figure 4). In this case, the first movement (UNIT

TURN) is calculated when the racket begins to move

in the direction of displacement, i.e., to the right for

forehand and to the left for backhand in right-handers,

and vice versa for left-handers. The timer function of

the video analysis software was used to measure

reaction times. Twenty game situations were

analyzed (all by the same examiner), mixed between

rallies, serve response, first shot after serve,

icSPORTS 2023 - 11th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

154

attack/defense, and volley play for each player. Single

factor ANOVA was used to compare the means

between the differtent game situations. Pearson's

correlation coefficient was used to compare the

correlation between reaction time and player ranking,

and the t-test was used to examine the statistical

significance of the difference between two groups of

players distinguished by ATP ranking.

3 RESULTS

Since the opponent's impact gives time zero in the

timeline, negative values were found when the player

anticipates the movement (Table 1). The average RT

was 0.248 ± 0.07 s, correlating perceptibly with

playing level. Specifically, the correlation index was

found to be a trivial 0.15. The ten tennis players with

ATP rankings between #130 and #400 had an average

RT of 0.246 ± 0.07 s, and the subjects with rankings

between #400 and #1066 had an average RT of 0.250

± 0.07 s (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Average RT in players with ATP rankings

between #130 to #400, and subjects with rankings between

#400 to #1066).

The longest RTs were recorded at the first stroke after

the serve, averaging 0.280 ± 0.05 s (0.278 ± 0.05 s for

players with better ranking and 0.282 ± 0.05 s for the

second group). The shortest in defensive situations

when the opponent was attacking or playing a volley

and the player examined anticipate by starting the

move even before the opponent's stroke at times. In

this case, they averagely reacted in 0.069 ± 0.18 s

(Figure 6).

Table 1: Measurement of RTs in the fifteen players examined. Text color refers to: black = baseline rally, red = return, green

= 1st shot after serve, light blue = opponent volley, purple = volley.

Pla

er ATP Challen

er Castel del Monte 2022 Measurements of reaction time

# Wei

ht Hei

ht A

ankin

ATP

est Ran

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8

1 78 185 26 130 Sin

les 105 0.245 0.212 -0.250 -0.108 0.383 0.308 0.320 0.237

2 82 185 18 251 Sin

les 246 0.270 0.241 0.245 0.325 0.258 0.300 0.220 0.245

3 84 191 25 277 Sin

les 272 0.220 0.212 0.241 0.354 0.200 0.154 0.312 0.266

4 86 191 28 286 Sin

les 211 0.245 0.170 0.279 0.204 0.233 0.254 0.187 0.225

5 82 185 28 293 Doubles 271 0.204 0.270 0.204 0.275 0.220 0.279 0.250 0.313

6 81 185 29 295 Sin

les 262 0.262 0.270 0.295 0.250 0.241 0.200 0.175 0.270

7 73 188 25 323 Sin

les 220 0.200 0.254 0.337 0.366 0.220 0.258 0.208 0.366

8 78 185 20 334 Sin

les 261 0.325 0.337 0.375 0.175 0.362 0.345 0.233 0.325

9 87 185 35 423 Sin

les 49 0.270 0.229 0.275 0.266 0.362 0.212 0.270 0.254

10 77 188 26 442 Sin

les 259 0.295 0.316 0.254 0.258 0.200 0.262 0.245 0.320

11 80 188 23 452 Sin

les 313 0.304 0.245 0.287 0.258 0.308 0.250 0.287 0.350

12 86 185 36 479 Sin

les 33 0.245 0.129 0.237 0.250 0.270 0.266 0.179 0.300

13 70 175 24 575 Sin

les 557 0.229 0.250 0.166 0.325 0.175 0.220 0.195 0.212

14 70 175 26 602 Sin

les 536 0.245 0.225 0.220 0.212 0.216 0.229 0.295 0.204

15 73 175 24 1066 Sin

les 1027 0.262 0.275 0.229 0.208 0.260 0.237 0.245 0.200

Measurements of reaction time

#9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 Average Median Stand.

Dev.

0.250 0.333 0.266 0.287 0.195 0.262 0.258 0.183 0.262 0.270 0.208 0.287 0.220 0.260 0.15

0.241 0.283 0.258 0.208 0.333 0.258 0.270 0.341 0.125 0.250 0.245 0.241 0.258 0.254 0.05

0.166 0.183 0.104 0.233 0.200 0.225 0.270 0.208 0.137 0.354 0.187 0.204 0.222 0.210 0.07

0.229 0.254 0.225 0.258 0.233 0.250 0.245 0.191 0.212 0.204 0.237 0.287 0.231 0.233 0.03

0.220 0.300 0.191 0.325 0.183 0.241 0.258 0.233 0.329 0.108 0.295 0.337 0.252 0.254 0.06

0.237 0.200 0.220 0.283 0.270 0.195 0.233 0.241 0.183 0.237 0.245 0.300 0.240 0.241 0.04

0.250 0.370 0.216 0.266 0.241 0.237 0.412 0.187 0.250 0.270 0.283 0.266 0.273 0.256 0.06

0.229 0.345 0.254 0.275 0.250 0.216 0.308 0.262 0.150 0.250 0.158 0.258 0.272 0.260 0.07

0.245 0.266 0.200 0.241 0.333 0.358 0.237 0.304 0.295 0.212 0.366 0.283 0.274 0.268 0.05

0.279 0.291 0.279 0.325 0.283 0.250 0.295 0.225 0.250 0.220 0.325 0.170 0.267 0.271 0.04

0.270 0.258 0.158 -0.187 0.250 0.258 0.287 0.270 0.245 0.283 0.250 0.258 0.244 0.258 0.11

0.270 0.212 0.166 0.258 0.283 0.291 0.300 0.225 0.250 0.354 0.291 0.216 0.250 0.254 0.05

0.262 0.258 0.250 0.233 0.258 0.241 0.262 0.220 0.237 0.208 0.245 0.250 0.235 0.239 0.03

0.220 -0.060 0.000 0.233 0.300 0.191 0.320 0.187 0.254 0.254 0.329 0.325 0.220 0.227 0.10

0.208 0.245 0.275 0.233 0.254 0.254 0.245 0.291 0.370 0.241 0.291 0.362 0.259 0.250 0.04

Average:

0.248 0.250 0.07

Video Analysis Application to Assess the Reaction Time in an ATP Tennis Tournament

155

Figure 6: General average RT, in first-shot situations after

serve, defense, and return.

Although the best RTs occurred in defense situations,

the players’ move did not always occur in the correct

direction, because the anticipation has a relative

margin of error. Due to any fast wrist movement until

the impact, even a few milliseconds before,

everything can change. In the serve response phase,

RT was close to the average value of 0.245 ± 0.03 s.

The average RT in response in tennis players with

ATP rankings between #130 and #400 was 0.242 ±

0.03 s, while in the second group with rankings

between #400 and #1066 it was 0.248 ± 0.03 s

(Figure7).

Figure 7: Average RT of various game situations in players

with ATP rankings between #130 to #400 and in subjects

with rankings between #400 to #1066.

The largest percentage difference between the two

groups was found in the serve response situation. i.e.,

2.48%. In the average, a more negligible difference in

the order of 1.63% is shown (Figure 8). Although

some differences were found in the two ranking

groups, none of them was statistically significant.

While the differences reaction times found in various

game situations were found to be statistically

significant at the ANOVA p<0.001.

Figure 8: Percentage difference in various game situations

between players with ATP rankings between #130 to #400

and between #400 to #1066.

4 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, 2D video analysis was successfully

applied to assess RTs in tennis matches. RTs of high-

level tennis players have been shown to be very short,

sometimes less than 120 ms, especially in defensive

actions, when the player often starts before the

opponent's attacking shot. This result prompts us to

consider the importance of perceptual kinetic skills,

such as reaction speed and anticipation, in tennis

training. No relevant correlations were found between

reaction time and ranking. It would be interesting to

enlarge the sample and involve elite top10 players in

future works. Further development of this study may

focus on techniques for training perceptual skills in

tennis players with measurement of the possible

improvement of RTs in matches, investigating also

the effectiveness of different types of first movement.

Another possibility of new work advancements could

involve 3D video capture using binocular cameras

(Zanela et al., 2022) and analysis techniques based on

artificial intelligence (Vincenzo Bonaiuto et al.,

2023).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the organization of the

ATP Challenger "Castel del Monte" in particular in

the person of Vincenzo Ormas, and the ATP referees

Carmelo Di Dio and Riccardo De Biase.

REFERENCES

Aglioti, S. M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., & Urgesi, C. (2008).

Action anticipation and motor resonance in elite

icSPORTS 2023 - 11th International Conference on Sport Sciences Research and Technology Support

156

basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11(9), 1109–

1116.

ATP Tour. (2022). ATP Challenger “Castel del Monte”

tournament in November 2022.

https://www.atptour.com/en/tournaments/andria/6911/

overview/

BIOMOVIE ERGO. (2023). [Computer software].

http://www.infolabmedia.eu/

Casale, L. (2003). PHYSICAL TRAINING FOR TENNIS

PLAYERS. Professional Tennis Registry.

Castellani Alberto, D’Aprile Angelo, & Tamorri Stefano.

(1996). Tennis Training. Società Stampa Sportiva.

Cei, A. (1998). Psicologia dello sport. Il mulino.

Cei Alberto. (2015). Allenarsi per vincere. Calzetti

Mariucci.

Costa, S., Berchicci, M., Bianco, V., Croce, P., Di Russo,

F., Quinzi, F., Bertollo, M., & Zappasodi, F. (2023).

Brain dynamics of visual anticipation during spatial

occlusion tasks in expert tennis players. Psychology of

Sport and Exercise, 65, 102335.

Cox, R. H. (1994). Sport psychology: Concepts and

applications. Madison. WI: Brown and Benchmark.

Fish, D. (1983). Footwork. Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation & Dance, 54(5), 27–30.

Fox, E. L., Bowers, R. W., Foss, M. L., & others. (1993).

The physiological basis for exercise and sport. Brown

& Benchmark.

Groppel, J. L., Conroy, B., & Hubb, E. (1986). SPORTS

PERFORMANCE SERIES: The mechanics of the

tennis forehand drive: Suggestions for training the

tennis player. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 8(5),

5–11.

Issurin, V. B. (2010). New horizons for the methodology

and physiology of training periodization. Sports

Medicine, 40, 189–206.

Janssen, S. (2015). The determinants of reaction times:

Influence of stimulus intensity [Master’s Thesis].

University of Waterloo.

Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018).

Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human

multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and

task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin,

144(6), 557.

Matveev, L. P. (2001). Teoría general del entrenamiento

deportivo. Editorial Paidotribo.

Meinel, K., Gulinelli, M., & Schnabel, G. (1984). Teoria

del movimento: Abbozzo di una teoria della motricità

sportiva sotto l’aspetto pedagogico. Società stampa

sportiva.

Montagne, G., Bastin, J., & Jacobs, D. (2008). What is

visual anticipation and how much does it rely on the

dorsal stream? International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 39(2), 149–156.

Mudric, M., Cuk, I., Nedeljkovic, A., Jovanovic, S., &

Jaric, S. (2015). Evaluation of Video-based method for

the measurement of reaction time in specific sport

situation. International Journal of Performance

Analysis in Sport, 15(3), 1077–1089.

Proctor, R. W., & Schneider, D. W. (2018). Hick’s law for

choice reaction time: A review. Quarterly Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 71(6), 1281–1299.

Schmidt, R., & Lee, T. (2019). Motor learning and

performance 6th edition with web study guide-loose-

leaf edition: From principles to application. Human

Kinetics Publishers.

Schönborn, R. (1999). Advanced techniques for

competitive tennis. (No Title).

Senatore, F., & Buzzelli, S. (2022). Development of

reaction times in young tennis players using the

SensoBuzz application. ITF Coaching & Sport Science

Review, 30(88), 34–38.

Shimizu, T., Hachiuma, R., Saito, H., Yoshikawa, T., &

Lee, C. (2019). Prediction of future shot direction using

pose and position of tennis player. Proceedings

Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on

Multimedia Content Analysis in Sports, 59–66.

Singer, R. N., & Negri, P. (1984). L’apprendimento delle

capacita’motorie. Societa’stampa sportiva.

Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages:

Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30,

276–315.

Vincenzo Bonaiuto, Giuseppe Annino, Francesca Campoli,

Lucio Caprioli, Saeid Edriss, Elvira Padua, Emilio

Panichi, Cristian Romagnoli, Naomi Romagnoli, &

Andrea Zanela. (2023). Assessing Sports Performances

Using an Artificial Intelligence-Driven System.

Vuong, J.-L., Edel, A., Voß, P., & Ferrauti, A. (2022).

Effectiveness and Kinematic Analysis of Initial Step

Patterns for Multidirectional Acceleration in Team and

Racquet Sports. Journal of Human Kinetics, 85(1), 13–

22.

Zanela, A., Schirinzi, T., Mercuri, N. B., Stefani, A.,

Romagnoli, C., Annino, G., Bonaiuto, V., & Cerroni, R.

(2022). Using a Video Device and a Deep Learning-

Based Pose Estimator to Assess Gait Impairment in

Neurodegenerative Related Disorders: A Pilot Study.

Applied Sciences, 12(9), 4642.

Zelaznik, H. N. (1996). Advances in motor learning and

control

. Human Kinetics.

Video Analysis Application to Assess the Reaction Time in an ATP Tennis Tournament

157