1 The present study investigated the differential effects of analogy and explicit 2 instructions on early stage motor learning and movement in a modified high jump task. 3 Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: analogy, 4 explicit light (reduced informational load), or traditional explicit (large informational load). 5 During the two-day learning phase, participants learned a novel high jump technique based 6 on the 'scissors' style using the instructions for their respective conditions. For the single-day 7 testing phase, participants completed both a retention test and task-relevant pressure test, the 8 latter of which featured a rising high-jump-bar pressure manipulation. Although analogy 9 learners demonstrated slightly more efficient technique and reported fewer technical rules on 10 average, the differences between the conditions were not statistically significant. There were, 11 however, significant differences in joint variability with respect to instructional type, as 12 variability was lowest for the analogy condition during both the learning and testing phases, 13 and as a function of block, as joint variability decreased for all conditions during the learning 14 phase. Findings suggest that reducing the informational volume of explicit instructions may 15 mitigate the deleterious effects on performance previously associated with explicit learning in 16 the literature. 17 18 19 20

recently published a study that indicated that analogy instruction may help older adults acquire resilient motor skills that require reduced cognitive processing compared to traditional explicit instruction. Although we do not dispute that analogy learning may prove useful for this population, in this commentary, we contend that there are methodological issues in this research-which are shared with previous studies comparing analogy and explicit instruction-that potentially limit ecological validity, impact the size of detected effects, influence the development and understanding of associated theory, and, as such, constrain resulting recommendations for applied practice. Of particular concern is the comparison of the single-item analogy instruction to the list of nine explicit instructions, which risks conflating the effects of the type of instruction with the volume of instruction. We further argue that the benefits of analogy may be more parsimoniously explained by the instruction's capability to succinctly convey skill (rather than its potential for limiting reinvestment), but that this capability may only be realised if the to-belearned analogy is relevant and readily understood by the learner. Finally, we suggest that research in this area must look to incorporate more rigorous methods that compare experimental conditions to representative reference groups that allow us to explore how and when to deploy the myriad instructional tools available to practitioners and learners.

Objectives: To date, research concerning analogy and explicit instruction has focused on motor learning (i.e., change or development over many learning trials) with limited attention directed toward acute performance considerations. Accordingly, the present study examined the short-term, differential effects of analogy and explicit instructions on motor control. Methods and design: Employing a within-subjects semi-counterbalanced design, 20 novice adult participants performed a dart-throwing task under baseline, analogy, and explicit instruction conditions. Across all throwing trials, movement and performance were evaluated using the dependent variables of throwing accuracy, elbow joint variability, angular velocity, and throw duration. Results: Analyses did not reveal any statistically significant differences between analogy and explicit instructions for any of the study's dependent measures. Compared to baseline performances, participants in both verbal instruction conditions demonstrated significantly less accuracy, significantly greater elbow joint variability, significantly slower angular velocity, and significantly longer throwing times. Conclusions: Findings suggest that verbal instruction may differentially affect performance in motor control situations, compared to motor learning contexts, leading to reduced accuracy; slower, more deliberate control; and increased levels of movement variability. Going forward, practitioners may need to more carefully consider not only how motor skills are instructed, but also the purpose and timing of any instructions.

In order to evaluate an experimental intervention, it should be contrasted against at least one relevant comparison group. Without meaningful and relevant comparisons, results can be difficult to interpret, effect sizes may be unduly minimised or exaggerated, and any resulting recommendations for practice could be called into question. Despite recognition of the importance of control groups in study design, however, there is currently limited guidance for sport-related research with regard to the selection and design of comparison groups. Furthermore, we have become increasingly concerned with the recurrent use of comparison groups, particularly in motor learning and control studies, that may initially appear well designed in experimental terms but ultimately possess limited relevance to-and in turn limited utility for informing-applied practice. To address these issues, we first set forth and discuss the primary types of control groups available for sport research, which include no-treatment, placebo or alternative-task, variable-delivery and active-treatment groups. We then present seven key principles to consider-upon identifying the appropriate type of control-in order to maximise internal validity, enhance interpretability and best inform realworld practice for sport psychology and motor learning and development. It is intended that the principles and recommendations detailed herein could support sport-related study design to the benefit of researchers and applied practitioners alike.

In their recent systematic review and meta-analysis, Cabral et al. (2022) explored the effects of implicit motor learning under pressure conditions. As a stated focus, they aimed to address the previously inconsistent findings in the literature and provide clarity to researchers and practitioners. Although we agree that such clarity is needed, we contend that there are critical methodological and procedural concerns that prevent this systematic review from achieving its objectives. In this commentary, we lay out these specific concerns in light of recent debates in this research area and the demands of real-world sporting contexts. More generally, we also call attention to important principles to consider when planning a systematic review of interventions in order to maximize contributions to the literature and usefulness for applied psychology practice.