Motor Skill LearningTuJuglingNCT07528924
TuJuggling: Comparing Two Juggling Learning Methods in College Students
A study testing Intervention A Throwing-Based Juggling Training and Intervention B Bouncing-Based Juggling Training in people with Motor Skill Learning and Juggling Performance, run by Universidad de Granada at 1 site in Spain.
Trial summary
This study will compare two ways of learning juggling in university students during a regular practical course: (A) juggling based on throwing the balls in the air and (B) juggling based on bouncing the balls off the floor. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Motor Skill Learning, Juggling Performance
- What is being tested?
- Intervention A Throwing-Based Juggling Training and Intervention B Bouncing-Based Juggling Training
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 200 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSpain
- Study dates
- 23 Mar 2026to 1 Jul 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Enrolled in the Motor Games course.
- Aged ≥18 years and able to understand and provide informed consent.
- Provide explicit agreement to participate in the study assessments.
Who cannot join
- Injury or medical condition that prevents safe participation in juggling, based on self-report prior to baseline assessment.
- Uncorrected or insufficiently corrected visual impairment that prevents seeing and tracking the balls during practice and assessments.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: TuJugling: a Cluster-randomized Cross-over Trial Comparing Two Juggling Learning Methods in College Students
This study will compare two ways of learning juggling in university students during a regular practical course: (A) juggling based on throwing the balls in the air and (B) juggling based on bouncing the balls off the floor. The study will also examine whether the order in which students learn these methods (A then B vs. B then A) influences how their performance improves over time.
Students will follow two 4-week practice periods separated by a 1-week break, and juggling performance will be assessed at three time points (baseline, after period 1, and after period 2). Performance will be scored from video recordings using anonymized study identifiers. Questionnaires about mood and flow experience will be collected at each assessment, and handgrip strength and brief computerized cognitive tasks will be assessed at baseline and the final evaluation in an exploratory manner.
The main comparison of training methods will focus on results after the first period to reduce the influence of prior practice, while results after the second period will be used to describe learning trajectories, order effects, and transfer to different execution conditions.
- Conditions
- Motor Skill Learning, Juggling Performance
- Being tested
- Intervention A Throwing-Based Juggling Training, Intervention B Bouncing-Based Juggling Training
- Keywords
- Juggling, Motor learning, Educational intervention, Motor performance
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Intervention A Throwing-Based Juggling TrainingOther
The program comprises two 4-week intervention periods (period 1 and period 2) separated by a 1-week separation interval. Training will be primarily self-directed and supported by standardized official video tutorials that progress from lower to higher motor complexity in structured blocks, and by a per-session log. A session will be considered valid when the student practices juggling for 20 minutes. Three frontennis balls (standard course equipment) will be used. Training may be conducted wherever the student prefers (e.g., home or university facilities). Students will advance to the next pattern when they achieve 20 consecutive successful catches in the current pattern (applicable to one-hand and two-hand patterns).
Intervention A consists of throwing-based juggling tasks performed according to the block-structured progression defined in the official course video tutorials
Intervention B Bouncing-Based Juggling TrainingOther
The program comprises two 4-week intervention periods (period 1 and period 2) separated by a 1-week separation interval. Training will be primarily self-directed and supported by standardized official video tutorials that progress from lower to higher motor complexity in structured blocks, and by a per-session log. A session will be considered valid when the student practices juggling for 20 minutes. Three frontennis balls (standard course equipment) will be used. Training may be conducted wherever the student prefers (e.g., home or university facilities). Students will advance to the next pattern when they achieve 20 consecutive successful catches in the current pattern (applicable to one-hand and two-hand patterns).
Intervention B consists of bouncing-based juggling tasks (ball rebounding off the floor) performed according to the block-structured progression defined in the official course video tutorials.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention A: Throwing-based juggling | Experimental | Intervention A consists of throwing-based juggling tasks performed according to the block-structured progression defined in the official course video tutorials Receives: Other: Intervention A Throwing-Based Juggling Training |
| Intervention B consists of bouncing-based juggling tasks (ball rebounding off the floor) | Experimental | Intervention B consists of bouncing-based juggling tasks (ball rebounding off the floor) performed according to the block-structured progression defined in the official course video tutorials. Receives: Other: Intervention B Bouncing-Based Juggling Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Juggling Performance
Juggling performance will be assessed using a study-specific standardized battery of juggling tasks.
The raw outcome is the number of successful catches in a single continuous attempt, two attempts per participant. Tasks have different raw caps depending on execution type (unimanual vs bimanual). Higher scores indicate better performance. Unimanual tasks: 0-30 catches. Bimanual tasks: 0-60 catches → normalized score = raw score ÷ 2 (0-30).
*Air-throw and Bounce tasks* One ball, right \& left Two balls in simultaneous columns (one per hand) Two balls with alternating throws, switching hands Two-ball cycle, right \& left Three-ball task using both hands
*Training-specific progression patterns*
RA - Active Bounce RB - Passive Bounce RC - Imperative Bounce A - Standard Cascade C - Cascade with Cycle CH - Successive Columns
Measured: Baseline and 4 weeks.
Secondary outcomes (7)
Juggling performance in different surface conditions
Juggling performance will be assessed using a study-specific standardized battery of juggling tasks. Support surface conditions: Floor (stable) and BOSU® balance trainer (unstable).
The raw outcome is the number of successful catches in a single continuous attempt, two attempts per participant. Tasks have different raw caps depending on execution type (unimanual vs bimanual). Higher scores indicate better performance. Unimanual tasks: 0-30 catches. Bimanual tasks: 0-60 catches → normalized score = raw score ÷ 2 (0-30).
Here the participant performs the same battery on stable and unstable condition
*Air-throw and Bounce tasks* One ball, right \& left Two balls in simultaneous columns (one per hand) Two balls with alternating throws, switching hands Two-ball cycle, right \& left Three-ball task using both hands
*Training-specific progression patterns* RA - Active Bounce RB - Passive Bounce RC - Imperative Bounce A - Standard Cascade C - Cascade with Cycle CH - Successive Columns
Measured: Baseline and 8 weeks.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) - Positive Affect Subscale.
Description: The Positive Affect subscale of the PANAS questionnaire measures the degree to which a person feels enthusiastic, active, and alert. It consists of 10 items, each rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very slightly or not at all; 5 = extremely).
Unit of Measure: units on a scale.
Scale Information:
Minimum Value: 10
Maximum Value: 50
Higher scores mean a better outcome
Measured: Baseline and week 4 and week 8.
Brief Inventory of Optimal Experiences (Flow)
Flow experience during the juggling activity will be assessed using the Brief Inventory of Optimal Experiences (Flow), a validated 9-item Spanish questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree).
Measured: Baseline and week 4 and week 8.
Handgrip Strength Measured by Digital Dynamometer
Description: Handgrip strength will be assessed using a calibrated (Jamar) digital dynamometer. Participants will perform two maximum effort trials with each hand, with 60 seconds of rest between attempts. The maximum value recorded (the peak force) from the dominant hand will be used for analysis.
Unit of Measure: Kilograms (kg)
Scale Information: Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline and week 8
Matrix Rotation Task: accuracy (%)
Visuospatial processing and mental rotation ability will be assessed using a computerized Matrix Rotation Task administered via the Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) platform. Participants judge whether rotated matrices match a target configuration.
The primary outcome is accuracy (% correct responses). Reaction time (median of correct trials) will also be recorded for descriptive purposes.
Scores range from 0% to 100%, with higher values indicating better performance.
Measured: Baseline and week 8
Corsi Block-Tapping Test (forward): maximum span
Visuospatial working memory will be assessed using the computerized Corsi Block-Tapping Test (forward condition) administered via PEBL. Participants reproduce sequences of spatial locations in the same order presented.
The primary outcome is maximum span length (longest correctly reproduced sequence). Total score may also be recorded descriptively.
The span score is an integer value, with higher scores indicating better working memory performance.
Measured: Baseline and week 8
Go/No-Go Task: commission errors
Inhibitory control and sustained attention will be assessed using a computerized Go/No-Go task administered via PEBL. Participants respond to frequent Go stimuli and withhold responses to infrequent No-Go stimuli.
The primary outcome is number of commission errors (responses to No-Go stimuli). Omission errors and median reaction time for correct Go trials may also be recorded descriptively.
The number of commission errors ranges from 0 to the total number of No-Go trials, with lower values indicating better inhibitory control.
Measured: Baseline and week 8
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted14 Apr 2026
- Study start23 Mar 2026
- Primary completion15 Jun 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion1 Jul 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Motor Skill LearningStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Universidad de Granada
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, JAVIER FERNÁNDEZ-ORTEGA, Universidad de Granada
- Investigators
- Andrés B. Fernández-Revelles, Sport Science, Principal investigator, Universidad de Granada
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07528924
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- #6000
- Acronym
- TuJugling
- Status last verified
- Apr 2026
- First submitted
- 18 Feb 2026
- Last updated
- 20 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-identified individual participant data (IPD) that underlie the results reported in future publications, including the primary outcome measures and demographic information, will be made available to qualified researchers. Data will be shared upon reasonable request to support further scientific research or meta-analysis, provided that the requestor presents a methodologically sound proposal and signs a data access agreement to ensure participant confidentiality. This access will be available starting 6 months after the primary study results are published.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- TuJugling: a Cluster-randomized Cross-over Trial Comparing Two Juggling Learning Methods in College Students
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07528924
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- TuJugling / #6000
- Conditions
- Motor Skill Learning, Juggling Performance
- Keywords
- Juggling, Motor learning, Educational intervention, Motor performance
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Universidad de GranadaUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 23 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Jun 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 1 Jul 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 14 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study will compare two ways of learning juggling in university students during a regular practical course: (A) juggling based on throwing the balls in the air and (B) juggling based on bouncing the balls off the floor. The study will also examine whether the order in which students learn these methods (A then B vs. B then A) influences how their performance improves over time.
Students will follow two 4-week practice periods separated by a 1-week break, and juggling performance will be assessed at three time points (baseline, after period 1, and after period 2). Performance will be scored from video recordings using anonymized study identifiers. Questionnaires about mood and flow experience will be collected at each assessment, and handgrip strength and brief computerized cognitive tasks will be assessed at baseline and the final evaluation in an exploratory manner.
The main comparison of training methods will focus on results after the first period to reduce the influence of prior practice, while results after the second period will be used to describe learning trajectories, order effects, and transfer to different execution conditions.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention A: Throwing-based juggling | Experimental | Other: Intervention A Throwing-Based Juggling TrainingIntervention A consists of throwing-based juggling tasks performed according to the block-structured progression defined in the official course video tutorials |
| Intervention B consists of bouncing-based juggling tasks (ball rebounding off the floor) | Experimental | Other: Intervention B Bouncing-Based Juggling TrainingIntervention B consists of bouncing-based juggling tasks (ball rebounding off the floor) performed according to the block-structured progression defined in the official course video tutorials. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Enrolled in the Motor Games course.
- Aged ≥18 years and able to understand and provide informed consent.
- Provide explicit agreement to participate in the study assessments.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Injury or medical condition that prevents safe participation in juggling, based on self-report prior to baseline assessment.
- Uncorrected or insufficiently corrected visual impairment that prevents seeing and tracking the balls during practice and assessments.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention A Throwing-Based Juggling TrainingThe program comprises two 4-week intervention periods (period 1 and period 2) separated by a 1-week separation interval. Training will be primarily self-directed and supported by standardized official video tutorials that progress from lower to higher motor complexity in structured blocks, and by a per-session log. A session will be considered valid when the student practices juggling for 20 minutes. Three frontennis balls (standard course equipment) will be used. Training may be conducted wherever the student prefers (e.g., home or university facilities). Students will advance to the next pattern when they achieve 20 consecutive successful catches in the current pattern (applicable to one-hand and two-hand patterns). Intervention A consists of throwing-based juggling tasks performed according to the block-structured progression defined in the official course video tutorials | Other | Intervention A: Throwing-based juggling |
| Intervention B Bouncing-Based Juggling TrainingThe program comprises two 4-week intervention periods (period 1 and period 2) separated by a 1-week separation interval. Training will be primarily self-directed and supported by standardized official video tutorials that progress from lower to higher motor complexity in structured blocks, and by a per-session log. A session will be considered valid when the student practices juggling for 20 minutes. Three frontennis balls (standard course equipment) will be used. Training may be conducted wherever the student prefers (e.g., home or university facilities). Students will advance to the next pattern when they achieve 20 consecutive successful catches in the current pattern (applicable to one-hand and two-hand patterns). Intervention B consists of bouncing-based juggling tasks (ball rebounding off the floor) performed according to the block-structured progression defined in the official course video tutorials. | Other | Intervention B consists of bouncing-based juggling tasks (ball rebounding off the floor) |
Primary outcome
Juggling Performance
Time frame: Baseline and 4 weeks.
Juggling performance will be assessed using a study-specific standardized battery of juggling tasks. The raw outcome is the number of successful catches in a single continuous attempt, two attempts per participant. Tasks have different raw caps depending on execution type (unimanual vs bimanual). Higher scores indicate better performance. Unimanual tasks: 0-30 catches. Bimanual tasks: 0-60 catches → normalized score = raw score ÷ 2 (0-30). *Air-throw and Bounce tasks* One ball, right \& left Two balls in simultaneous columns (one per hand) Two balls with alternating throws, switching hands Two-ball cycle, right \& left Three-ball task using both hands *Training-specific progression patterns* RA - Active Bounce RB - Passive Bounce RC - Imperative Bounce A - Standard Cascade C - Cascade with Cycle CH - Successive Columns
7 secondary outcomes
Juggling performance in different surface conditions
Time frame: Baseline and 8 weeks.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) - Positive Affect Subscale.
Time frame: Baseline and week 4 and week 8.
Brief Inventory of Optimal Experiences (Flow)
Time frame: Baseline and week 4 and week 8.
Handgrip Strength Measured by Digital Dynamometer
Time frame: Baseline and week 8
Matrix Rotation Task: accuracy (%)
Time frame: Baseline and week 8
Corsi Block-Tapping Test (forward): maximum span
Time frame: Baseline and week 8
Go/No-Go Task: commission errors
Time frame: Baseline and week 8
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 20 Oct 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-identified individual participant data (IPD) that underlie the results reported in future publications, including the primary outcome measures and demographic information, will be made available to qualified researchers. Data will be shared upon reasonable request to support further scientific research or meta-analysis, provided that the requestor presents a methodologically sound proposal and signs a data access agreement to ensure participant confidentiality. This access will be available starting 6 months after the primary study results are published.
Related trials for Motor Skill Learning
Not yet recruiting
Effect of a Telerehabilitation-Supported, Family-Centered Early Intervention Program on Neurodevelopmental and Parental Outcomes in Infants at Mild-to-Moderate Risk
Development Delay, Motor Skills Disorders
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Action Observation and Motor Imagery on PNF Skill Learning in Physiotherapy Students
Motor Skill Learning
Not yet recruiting
Newenkantun: a Play-based Program to Promote Socioemotional Learning in Early Childhood Education in Chile.
Socioemotional Development, Physical Activity
Not yet recruiting
Neuromotor Task Training in Autistic Children With Motor Difficulties
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)
RecruitingObservational study
The Beneficial Effects of Naps on Motor Learning
Stroke
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Andrés B. Fernández-Revelles, Sport Science principal investigator
Universidad de Granada
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Intervention A Throwing-Based Juggling Training and Intervention B Bouncing-Based Juggling Training in people with Motor Skill Learning and Juggling Performance, run by Universidad de Granada at 1 site in Spain.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Juggling Performance (time frame: Baseline and 4 weeks.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 Oct 2026.