88 mm (1.2%) with the participant 9 m away from selleck compound the camera. Estimation of experimental effects based on judges�� scores Three qualified judges viewed each trial and provided a performance score. Breaks in body segmental alignment during each test were penalised by a deduction of 0.10 to 0.50 points (on a scale of 10 points), in accordance with the code of points ( FIG, 2001 ). The average of the three professional judges�� assessments was the final score of the performance. Statistical analysis Analysis of variance for repeated measures (ANOVA) was used to estimate the statistical significance of differences among measurements. The normality of distribution and the homogeneity of variances were tested with the Shapiro-Wilk test.
After the verification of the prerequisite, studied variables were analysed using a two-way mixed-factor analysis of variance, Group (2) �� Test Time (3), with the two experimental groups of acrobats representing a between- participants factor and the testing times (pre-test, retention and delayed retention tests) representing a within-participants factor. A probability level of p<0.05 was used to indicate statistical significance. For significant differences, a Fisher post hoc test was used. The results were statistically analysed using the Statistica programme (StatSoft, Inc. [2005]. STATISTICA [data analysis software system], version 7.1. www.statsoft.com). Results To assess the performance quality, the judges�� scores were used (a typical evaluation method in competitions). Scores for performing the round-off salto backward tucked were converted into percentage values.
It was assumed that 100% equalled 10 points, which was the maximum score for performing a given motor task ( Figure 2 ), and acrobats�� errors caused percentage values to be deducted from the total. At the beginning of the experiment (pre-test), the differences between the key elements and the mean values obtained by groups B and C for performing the round-off salto backward tucked were not significant (a group effect F(1, 28)= 0.33, p=0.57; d=0.22)). In the pre-test, group B made more errors while performing the round-off salto backward tucked than group C (statistically insignificant). Figure 2 Mean scores for the technical performance of the round-off salto backward tucked. The experiment effect was analysed using ANOVA with repeated measures (Group �� Test Time).
ANOVA revealed a significant Entinostat effect of Group (F(1,28)=54,87, p<0.001) as well as a significant Test Time effect (F(2, 56)=190,74, p<0.001). The post hoc comparison indicated significant differences between the feedback applied in both groups during the retention test (6%; p<.001; size effect d=3.18) and delayed retention test (7%; p<0.001; size effect d=3.65). According to the judges�� scores, the type of feedback has a significant influence on performance between the retention and the delayed retention tests.