Individual Differences Influencing Immediate Effects of Internal and External Focus Instructions on Children’s Motor Performance

Abswoude, Femke van; Nuijen, Nienke B.; Kamp, John van der; Steenbergen, Bert

doi:10.1080/02701367.2018.1442915

Cited by 31 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results demonstrated that working memory did not predict the extent to which motor learning had occurred, neither after internal focus instructions, nor after external focus instructions. These results are consistent with previous research showing a lack of effect of working memory on motor learning of a golf putting task in general (Brocken et al, 2016;van Abswoude et al, 2018). Together these results question the role of working memory capacity for motor learning in general and more specifically for motor learning with an external versus an internal focus of attention.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Finally, verbal answers on the manipulation check were explored following the procedure of Perreault and French (2016) and van Abswoude et al (2018). The answers of the participants were divided into multiple fragments that were coded separately using the coding scheme that is displayed in Table 2.…”

Section: Manipulation Checkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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%

“…Given these equivocal results, it is crucial to examine the underlying mechanisms of attentional focus instructions in children, which may differ from those in adults. Yet, only two of these studies did address the possible mechanisms underlying attentional focus effects in children (Brocken et al, 2016;van Abswoude et al, 2018). Both studies examined the effects of external focus instructions (i.e., "to move the golf club like a pendulum") and internal focus instructions (i.e., "to move the arms like a pendulum") on motor learning of a golf-putting task in children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Self Cite

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Manipulation Checkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…attentional focus on instructions could be modulated by individual differences and preferences, but to our knowledge gender preferences have not been investigated. 21 Future studies should investigate how women and men improve SM skills according to various teaching approaches and strategies.…”

Section: Gender Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning spinal manipulation: Gender and expertise differences in biomechanical parameters, accuracy, and variability*

Pasquier¹,

Barbier-Cazorla²,

Audo³

et al. 2019

Journal of Chiropractic Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate gender differences and expertise effects on biomechanical parameters as well as force accuracy and variability for students learning spinal manipulation. Methods: A total of 137 fourth- and fifth-year students were recruited for the study. Biomechanical parameters (preload, time to peak force, peak force, rate of force), as well as accuracy and variability of thoracic spine manipulation performance, were evaluated during 5 consecutive trials using a force-sensing table and a target force of 450 N. Gender, expertise differences on biomechanical parameters, as well as constant, variable, and absolute error were assessed using 2-way analysis of variance. Results: Analyses showed significant gender differences for several biomechanical parameters, as well as significant gender differences in accuracy and variability. Although women showed lower time to peak force and rate of force values, they were more precise and showed less variability than men when performing thoracic spine manipulations. Students with clinical expertise (fifth-year students) used less force and were more precise. Conclusion: Our results showed that gender differences in spinal manipulation performance exist and that these differences seem to be mainly explained by alternative motor strategies. To develop gender-specific teaching methods, future studies should explore why men and women approach spinal manipulation tasks differently.

show abstract

An external focus promotes motor learning of an aiming task in individuals with hearing impairments

Samadi,

Abedanzadeh,

Norouzi

et al. 2024

European Journal of Sport Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research has shown that external relative to internal focus (IF) instructions may improve motor performance as well as cognitive function (e.g., attentional stability and task‐focus). The aim of the study was to examine the influence of attentional focus instructions on skill acquisition and learning of an aiming task in individuals with hearing impairments. The participants (N = 39, Mage = 17.87 ± 1.88 years) performed a bowling task with their dominant hand to knock down as many pins as possible. On day 1, they were randomly divided into three attentional focus groups; IF (focus on your throwing hand), external focus (EF) (focus on the pins), and control (no‐focus) instructions. Each participant performed 36 trials, divided into 3 blocks of 12 trials. Attentional focus instructions were given before each block, with a brief reminder provided after each 3 trials. On day 2, retention and transfer (further distance) tests were performed. Results showed that while there were no significant differences between groups in the pre‐test, the EF group outperformed both IF and control groups in retention and transfer tests. No significant difference was found between the control and IF. The findings suggest that the advantages of the external relative to the IF and no‐focus instructions may generalize to individuals with hearing impairments.

show abstract

Individual Differences Influencing Immediate Effects of Internal and External Focus Instructions on Children’s Motor Performance

Cited by 31 publications

References 32 publications

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

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

Learning spinal manipulation: Gender and expertise differences in biomechanical parameters, accuracy, and variability*

An external focus promotes motor learning of an aiming task in individuals with hearing impairments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About