Effects of an external compared to an internal focus of attention on the excitability of fast and slow(er) motor pathways

Abstract

The neurophysiological mechanisms underlying the behavioural improvements usually associated with an external (EF) compared with an internal focus of attention (IF) remain poorly investigated. Surround inhibition in the primary cortex has been shown to be more pronounced with an EF, indicating a more spatial restriction of the motor command. However, the influence of different foci on the temporal aspect of the motor command, such as the modulation of fast versus slow(er) motor pathways, remains unknown and was therefore investigated in this study. Fourteen participants were asked to press on a pedal with the right foot to match its position with a target line displayed on a screen. The deviation of the pedal from the target line was used as a behavioural parameter and compared between both foci (EF vs IF). Additionally, conditioned H-reflexes were evoked during the motor task to assess the excitability of fast (direct) and slower (more indirect) motor pathways when adopting an EF or IF. With an EF compared to an IF, the motor performance was enhanced (P = .001; + 24%) and the activation of slow(er) motor pathways was reduced (P < 0.001, − 11.73%). These findings demonstrate for the first time that using different attentional strategies (EF and IF) has an influence on the excitability of slow(er) motor pathways. Together with the increased intracortical inhibition and surround inhibition known from previous studies, the diminished activation in the slow(er) motor pathways further explains why using an EF is a more economic strategy.

External and internal focus of attention differentially modulate corticospinal excitability in anticipatory postural adjustments

“…Previous studies using TMS reported no significant difference in the corticospinal excitability of the agonist muscle between the EF and IF conditions in finger 16,17,40 and elbow 41 movements. However, the short-interval intracortical inhibition in the M1 of the agonist muscle was greater in the EF condition than in the IF condition, and the levels of surround inhibition in the adjacent muscle were higher when adopting an EF compared to an IF during force control 16,17 .…”

“…However, the short-interval intracortical inhibition in the M1 of the agonist muscle was greater in the EF condition than in the IF condition, and the levels of surround inhibition in the adjacent muscle were higher when adopting an EF compared to an IF during force control 16,17 . Moreover, adopting an IF strategy showed higher excitability of slow motor pathways, but not fast motor pathways, in comparison with the EF strategy 40 . Recently, an electroencephalogram (EEG) study further revealed that the IF condition increased the EEG coherence (10)(11)(12) of Alpha 2 between T3 (verbal-analytical region) and Fz (motor planning region) compared to that without any instruction regarding attentional focus, suggesting that an IF strategy might lead to higher real-time conscious motor processing and reduce the accuracy of motor performance 42 .…”

A Pilot Study on Attentional Focus in Prescribing Physical Exercise in Outpatients with Obesity

“…On the contrary, in the case of an internal focus strategy, the motor control system becomes more constrained, with the direct consequence of depressing motor performance due to more controlled and conscious movement [ 57 ]. Moreover, when using an EF, a more economic strategy is possible because it seems to facilitate altered neural activation de facto, resulting in more intracortical inhibition that reduces the upper motoneurons’ activation, accompanied by a reduced slower motor pathway [ 14 , 58 ].…”

Pay attention! The influence of coach‐, content‐, and player‐related factors on focus of attention statements during tennis training

“…In contrast, an EF seems to promote more automatic modes of control and therefore results in an enhanced performance (Wulf, 2013). The idea of the constrained action hypothesis was supported by studies showing an improved neuromuscular strategy (Lohse, Sherwood, & Healy, 2011; Vance, Wulf, Tollner, McNevin, & Mercer, 2004; Walchli, Ruffieux, Bourquin, Keller, & Taube, 2016; Wulf, Dufek, et al, 2010) but also a more efficient brain activation (Kuhn, Keller, Egger, & Taube, 2021; Kuhn, Keller, Lauber, & Taube, 2018; Kuhn, Keller, Ruffieux, & Taube, 2017a; Kuhn, Keller, Ruffieux, & Taube, 2017b) with an EF.…”