目的：敏捷為網球運動表現重要能力的關鍵指標。本研究評估視覺反應動作訓練和 增強式訓練，對網球選手在眼腳反應時間、下肢力量、速度與敏捷性之成效。方法 ：以大學網球選手分別為視覺反應動作訓練組、增強式訓練組與控制組各 24 人， 共計 72 人。三組均接受 4 週相同的網球訓練 (每週 3 天，每天 2 小時)，每次完 成網球訓練後，視覺反應動作訓練組及增強式訓練組額外增加 3.5 分鐘輔助訓練。 採用成對 t-test 比較受試者組內前後測有無差異，及單因子變異數分析 (One-way ANOVA) 比較三組間眼腳反應時間、下肢力量、速度與敏捷性及成效。結果：(一) 視覺反應動作訓練組與增強式訓練組經訓練後，慣用與非慣用腳之眼腳反應時間、 下肢力量、速度與敏捷性均顯著進步 (p < .05)。(二) 視覺反應動作訓練組之慣用腳 之眼腳反應時間顯著優於控制組 (p < .05)，非慣用腳之眼腳反應時間顯著優於增強 式訓練組與控制組 (p < .001)。(三) 增強式訓練組在下肢力量與敏捷性顯著優於控 制組 (p < .05)。(四) 視覺反應動作訓練組與增強式訓練組在速度皆顯著優於控制組 (p < .05)。結論：視覺反應動作訓練組與增強式訓練組在眼腳反應時間、下肢力量、 速度與敏捷性等均提升，惟眼腳反應時間是視覺反應動作訓練組相較二組佳，而增 強式訓練組在下肢力量、速度與敏捷性相較二組顯著提升。建議教練在訓練時可依 選手欲加強之處，斟酌選擇補強訓練方式，以達提升敏捷能力。

Purpose: Agility is one of the critical indicators of tennis performance. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of eye-foot response time, lower limb strength, speed, and agility through visual reaction and plyometric training among tennis athletes. Methods: University tennis athletes were assigned to visual reaction training (n = 24), plyometric training (n = 24), and active-control groups (n = 24). Three groups received the same tennis session for 4 weeks (2 hours a day, 3 days a week). After each session, the visual reaction and plyometric training groups had 3.5 min extra auxiliary training. Paired t-test was made to compare these measures before and after 4-week training. In addition, one-way ANOVA was used to compare these measures and the improvement of these measures after 4-week training among the three study groups. Results: (1) After 4-week training, the visual reaction training group and plyometric training group showed significant improvement in the eyefoot response time of the dominant and non-dominant foot, lower limb strength, speed, and agility (p < .05). (2) The visual reaction training group had a significantly better of the dominant foot than the control group (p < .05) and significantly better eye-foot response time of the non-dominant foot than the plyometric training group and control group (p < .001). (3) The plyometric training group was significantly better than the control group in lower limb strength and agility (p < .05). (4) The visual reaction training and plyometric training groups were both significantly better than the control group in speed (p < .05). Conclusion: The eye-foot response time, lower limb strength, speed, and agility in visual reaction training and plyometric training groups were all improved. In contrast, the eye-foot response time was better in the visual reaction training group than in the other groups, while the lower limb strength, speed, and agility showed significant improvement in the plyometric training group compared to the other groups. Therefore, we recommended that coaches choose our two auxiliary training programs according to the athlete’s demands.