Focus of Attention in Children's Motor Learning: Examining the Role of Age and Working Memory

Abstract

The authors investigated the relative effectiveness of different attentional focus instructions on motor learning in primary school children. In addition, we explored whether the effect of attentional focus on motor learning was influenced by children's age and verbal working memory capacity. Novice 8-9-year old children (n = 30) and 11-12-year-old children (n = 30) practiced a golf putting task. For each age group, half the participants received instructions to focus (internally) on the swing of their arm, while the other half was instructed to focus (externally) on the swing of the club. Children's verbal working memory capacity was assessed with the Automated Working Memory Assessment. Consistent with many reports on adult's motor learning, children in the external groups demonstrated greater improvements in putting accuracy than children who practiced with an internal focus. This effect was similar across age groups. Verbal working memory capacity was not found to be predictive of motor learning, neither for children in the internal focus groups nor for children in the external focus groups. In conclusion, primary school children's motor learning is enhanced by external focus instructions compared to internal focus instructions. The purported modulatory roles of children's working memory, attentional capacity, or focus preferences require further investigation.

The Roles of Declarative Knowledge and Working Memory in Explicit Motor Learning and Practice Among Children With Low Motor Abilities

“…Children with low working memory capacity did not show learning. In contrast, two other recent studies involving children, both typically developing children and children with severe motor difficulties, did not find support for the conjecture that working memory capacity is associated with learning (Brocken, Kal, & van der Kamp, 2016;Jongbloed-Pereboom, Peeters, Overvelde, Nijhuis-van der Sanden, & Steenbergen, 2015). The relationship between working memory capacity and performance during practice (or acquisition performance) was not assessed in these studies.…”

“…An obvious one is the nature and content of the instructions. For example, Brocken et al (2016) recently showed that children benefit more from instructions that direct attention toward the effects of the movement, rather than toward the execution of the movement as in the present study. In addition, not all instructions are equally meaningful for facilitating learning in novices; we developed the instructions in collaboration with an expert boccia coach.…”

Motor learning in children with developmental coordination disorder: The role of focus of attention and working memory

“…The current findings add important evidence to the increasing body of literature showing a lack, or an unexpected role of working memory for motor learning of children (Brocken, Kal, & van der Kamp, 2016;Jongbloed-Pereboom, Peeters, Overvelde, Nijihuis-van der Sanden, and Steenbergen (2015); Krajenbrink et al, 2018;van Abswoude, Nuijen et al, 2018;van Abswoude, van der Kamp, & Steenbergen, 2018). For example, in a recent study, van van Abswoude, van der Kamp et al, 2018 found only a small effect of visuospatial working memory capacity on performance during practice of an aiming task in an explicit context.…”

“…However, this effect was not present for retention one day later. Brocken et al (2016) also failed to show a role for working memory capacity on learning with an internal or external focus of attention, although they only investigated verbal working memory. Finally, in the studies of Krajenbrink et al (2018) and van van Abswoude, Nuijen et al (2018) there was also no role of working memory capacity for respectively learning over a one week period, and performance during practice, with internal or external focus instructions.…”

“…However, retention periods for these studies were shorter, 24 h and 48 h respectively. Also in typically developing children, benefits of an external focus of attention were only found during or immediately after practice (Abdollahipour, Wulf, Psotta, & Nieto, 2015, Krajenbrink et al, 2018 or after a 24 h to 48 h delay (Brocken et al, 2016;Flores, Schild, & Chiviacowsky, 2015;Hadler, Chiviacowsky, Wulf, & Schild, 2014;Thorn, 2006). Moreover, some studies did not find any differences between both attentional foci either during practice or after a short retention (Chow, Koh, Davids, Button, & Rein, 2014;Emanuel, Jarus, & Bart, 2008;Perreault & French, 2016;van Abswoude, Nuijen et al, 2018) or after a longer retention period (Krajenbrink et al, 2018).…”