Differences in children’s thinking and learning during attentional focus instruction

Perreault, Melanie; French, Karen E.

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2015.11.013

Cited by 34 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Children with moderate VI (i.e., classified as B3 and B4) had less balance error when using an external focus, which supports the constrained action hypothesis by suggesting that when vision is moderately impaired, an external focus can still result in more automated processing. This finding coincides with the widespread results from previous research with typically developing adults and typically developing children ( Wulf et al, 2010 ; Wulf, 2013 ; Perreault and French, 2016 ). In addition to balance error data, previous research involving the same task has reported increased mean power frequency (MPF) (i.e., smaller, more frequent adjustments) while using an external focus of attention ( Wulf et al, 2001a ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Differential Effects of Attentional Focus in Children with Moderate and Profound Visual Impairments

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been consistently reported that an external focus of attention leads to better motor performance than an internal focus, but no research to date has explored this effect in a population with visual impairments (VI). External focus statements typically reference something in the environment (e.g., target) that may be difficult to conceptualize for people with VI since they cannot generate a visual representation of the object of focus. Internal focus statements could be more closely identifiable with proprioception that is not impaired in this population. Recent studies have reported that sighted adults with temporarily obstructed vision are able to receive an external focus benefit when performing discrete tasks (i.e., golf putt and vertical jump), however, it is unclear if those with VI would experience the same benefit. The purpose of this investigation was to compare how an internal focus and external focus impact the balance of children with VI. Eighteen children with VI were grouped into a moderate (n = 11) and a profound VI group (n = 7). Participants completed a familiarization trial, an internal focus trial (i.e., focusing on feet) and an external focus trial (i.e., focusing on markers) in a counterbalanced order. The moderate VI group had a lower root mean square error while using an external focus (p = 0.04), while the profound VI group did not differ between conditions (p > 0.05). These results suggest that while performing a task reliant on sensory feedback, an external focus benefit may be dependent on the severity of VI. Further research is needed to examine whether external focus statements can be presented in a way that may be more intuitive to those with profound VI. These findings may help to influence how professionals in health-related fields (e.g., physical therapist and physical educators) give instructions on motor performance to populations with VI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

The Differential Effects of Attentional Focus in Children with Moderate and Profound Visual Impairments

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although beneficial effects of external focus instruction and feedback have been found for children's motor performance and learning (e.g., Palmer et al 2017), this has not been consistently observed (e.g., Jarus et al, 2015;Perreault & French, 2016). These findings are in line with the constrained action hypothesis (Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Using a within-subjects approach, the present study is unable to clearly address the role of different attentional focus instructions in the acquisition of skills in childhood, and any long-term impact is unclear. Although the researcher checked for instruction comprehension, further manipulation check efforts would have provided information on how the instructions were used (see Perreault & French, 2016). As discussed, it is quite possible that characteristics of intention, distance and the task goals resulted in the external-far conditions being the most usable instructional-set provided as they were supported by the presence of the cone in the task set up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of External Focus Instruction Characteristics on Children’s Motor Performance

Marchant

Griffiths

Partridge³

et al. 2018

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The handful of studies that were performed in typically developing children have led to equivocal results. Chow, Koh, Davids, Button, and Rein (2014), Emanuel, Jarus, and Bart (2008), Perreault and French (2016), and van Abswoude, Nuijen, van der Kamp, and Steenbergen (2018) did not find significant differences between performance after external or internal focus of attention instructions measured both during practice (Emanuel et al, 2008;van Abswoude et al, 2018) and during retention test assessed 24-48 h after the last practice session (Chow et al, 2014;Emanuel et al, 2008;Perreault & French, 2016;van Abswoude et al, 2018). On the other hand, many studies replicated the beneficial effects of adopting an external focus of attention as measured during practice (Abdollahipour, Wulf, Psotta, & Nieto, 2015) or following retention test 24-48 h after practice (Brocken, Kal, & van der Kamp, 2016;Flores, Schild, & Chiviacowsky, 2015;Hadler, Chiviacowsky, Wulf, & Schild, 2014;Thorn, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor learning and movement automatization in typically developing children: The role of instructions with an external or internal focus of attention

Krajenbrink

Abswoude

Vermeulen

et al. 2018

Human Movement Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the current study was to examine the effects of an external focus of attention (i.e., on the movement outcome) versus an internal focus of attention (i.e., on the movement itself) on motor learning in typically developing children. We examined both immediate motor performance (i.e., practice effect, when focus instructions are given) as well as motor performance after one week (i.e., learning effect). In addition, we examined if an external and an internal focus of attention differently affected movement automatization, as measured using a dual-task paradigm. Finally, we explored whether the effect of attentional focus instructions on motor learning was influenced by children's working memory capacity. Participants were 8-12 year old (N = 162) typically developing children. Participants practiced a new motor task (i.e., 'Slingerball throwing task'). Results showed that an external focus of attention led to higher throwing accuracy during practice, but this beneficial effect did not extent to the retention test one week later. Furthermore, movement automatization did not differ after external or internal focus of attention instructions, and working memory capacity did not predict motor learning in children in either of the instruction conditions. This is the first study to show that the beneficial effects of an external focus of attention on discrete motor tasks found in previous studies with a child population seem to be short lived and decline after a one-week interval.

show abstract

Differences in children’s thinking and learning during attentional focus instruction

Cited by 34 publications

References 23 publications

The Differential Effects of Attentional Focus in Children with Moderate and Profound Visual Impairments

The Differential Effects of Attentional Focus in Children with Moderate and Profound Visual Impairments

The Influence of External Focus Instruction Characteristics on Children’s Motor Performance

Motor learning and movement automatization in typically developing children: The role of instructions with an external or internal focus of attention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About