Influence of attentional focus on skilled motor performance: Performance decrement under unfamiliar focus conditions

Maurer, Heiko; Munzert, Jörn

doi:10.1016/j.humov.2013.02.001

Cited by 70 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The IN group decreased AE significantly, whereas the EX group increased AE-both when changing the verbally determined focus of instruction. Other research has shown that an instruction to take an internal focus may also enhance performance in experts (Maurer & Munzert, 2013). However, the performance in the present experiment confirms that verbal-motor attention-related instructions influence participants' behavior, because conditions differed in task accuracy.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 49%

Verbal-Motor Attention-Focusing Instructions Influence Kinematics and Performance on a Golf-Putting Task

Munzert

Maurer

Reiser

2014

Journal of Motor Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examined how varying the content of verbal-motor instructions and requesting an internal versus external focus influenced the kinematics and outcome of a golf putting task. On Day 1, 30 novices performed 120 trials with the instruction to focus attention either on performing a pendulum-like movement (internal) or on the desired ball path (external). After 20 retention trials on Day 2, they performed 20 transfer trials with the opposite instruction. Group differences for retention and a group by block interaction showed that external instruction enhanced movement outcome. Kinematic data indicated that specific instruction content influenced outcomes by eliciting changes in movement execution. Switching from the external to the internal focus instruction resulted in a more pendulum-like movement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 49%

Verbal-Motor Attention-Focusing Instructions Influence Kinematics and Performance on a Golf-Putting Task

Munzert

Maurer

Reiser

2014

Journal of Motor Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If so, it might be that children were more likely to benefit from learning with an external focus, as it more closely resembles their preferred implicit mode of learning compared to learning with an internal focus. Indeed, it has been shown that attentional focus instructions benefit motor performance most when they are congruent with the performer's focus preferences (Kal et al, 2015;Maurer & Munzert, 2013). As we did not investigate children's focus preferences, this hypothesis awaits further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

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

Brocken

Kal

Kamp

2016

Journal of Motor Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…[71] Coaches may also want to take into account their athletes’ preferences and working memory; people with explicit motor control preferences and larger working memory capacity may benefit more from explicit interventions, and vice versa. [72,73] Still, please note that these are but hypotheses that await verification, and can by no means be used as fixed guidelines.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundImplicit motor learning is considered to be particularly effective for learning sports-related motor skills. It should foster movement automaticity and thereby facilitate performance in multitasking and high-pressure environments. To scrutinize this hypothesis, we systematically reviewed all studies that compared the degree of automatization achieved (as indicated by dual-task performance) after implicit compared to explicit interventions for sports-related motor tasks.MethodsFor this systematic review (CRD42016038249) conventional (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Web of Science) and grey literature were searched. Two reviewers independently screened reports, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessment. Implicit interventions of interest were analogy-, errorless-, dual-task-, and external focus learning. Data analysis involved descriptive synthesis of group comparisons on absolute motor dual-task (DT) performance, and motor DT performance relative to single-task motor performance (motor DTCs).ResultsOf the 4125 reports identified, we included 25 controlled trials that described 39 implicit-explicit group comparisons. Risk of bias was unclear across trials. Most comparisons did not show group differences. Some comparisons showed superior absolute motor DT performance (N = 2), superior motor DTCs (N = 4), or both (N = 3) for the implicit compared to the explicit group. The explicit group showed superior absolute motor DT performance in two comparisons.ConclusionsMost comparisons did not show group differences in automaticity. The remaining comparisons leaned more toward a greater degree of movement automaticity after implicit learning than explicit learning. However, due to an overall unclear risk of bias the strength of the evidence is level 3. Motor learning-specific guidelines for design and especially reporting are warranted to further strengthen the evidence and facilitate low-risk-of-bias trials.

show abstract

Influence of attentional focus on skilled motor performance: Performance decrement under unfamiliar focus conditions

Cited by 70 publications

References 25 publications

Verbal-Motor Attention-Focusing Instructions Influence Kinematics and Performance on a Golf-Putting Task

Verbal-Motor Attention-Focusing Instructions Influence Kinematics and Performance on a Golf-Putting Task

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

Does implicit motor learning lead to greater automatization of motor skills compared to explicit motor learning? A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About