Self-talk does not affect the transfer and retention in the tennis forehand learning in beginners

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of self-talk on motor learning in beginners. The learning task was the forehand stroke in tennis. Eighty-four students were assigned into five self-talk groups and one control group. One of the self-talk groups used four cues for directing attention to key elements of the forehand stroke. The other self-talk groups made use of only one of the four cues (ball, bounce, hit, and ready), and the control group received only general instructions. In the acquisition phase, all groups performed 180 trials over three days. Then they performed a transfer test of 10 trials involving a change in the target direction. After five days they performed a retention test in the same conditions of the acquisition phase. The performance was analysed in terms of rates of success and consistency of the forehand hit to the target located on the opponent’s court. Results showed that all groups improved their performances in the acquisition phase, and that they maintained the improvement in the retention and transfer tests. However, no differences were found between the groups. It was concluded that self-talk did not affect the learning of forehand stroke in tennis. In addition, learning with self-talk with four cues was similar to that with selftalk with only one cue.

Motion Picture Analysis: A Mechanical Study of Tennis Players during Forehand and Backhand Strokes

“…During the process of hitting the ball, the subjects also underwent surface electromyography testing. Based on the technical characteristics of forehand and backhand strokes, as well as anatomical knowledge, wireless sensors were attached to the gastrocnemius muscle, vastus lateralis muscle, and rectus femoris muscle for testing surface electromyography [24].…”

Self-Talk: An Interdisciplinary Review and Transdisciplinary Model

“…In previous categories, self-talk was seen as a natural phenomenon and most commonly termed automatic self-talk (Boudreault et al, 2018). Although self-talk was still referred to as positive self-talk (Table 1) in this category, more precise terms have often been used to identify the two most apparent subtypes of strategic self-talk interventions: instructional self-talk (Lane et al, 2016) and motivational self-talk (Ferreira et al, 2016) interventions. In addition, self-talk is described in strategic self-talk intervention research as cue words, prompts, or statements (Angeli et al, 2018; Hatzigeorgiadis et al, 2004) that are used as an intervention (Cumming et al, 2006; Girodo & Roehl, 1978) or experimental condition (Thomaes et al, 2020; Turner et al, 2018).…”

“…the Self-Talk Scale [STS]; Brinthaupt et al, 2009; Functions of Dialogues-Revised Questionnaire [FUND-R]; Puchalska-Wasyl & Zarzycka, 2021). By using questionnaires, authors were able to isolate and quantify specific sequences of organic self-talk to relate them to other types of self-talk (Thibodeaux & Winsler, 2018) as well as to other cognitive (Morin, 1995) Strategic ST intervention a Also: ST condition 82,83,88,89,90,96,99 Instructional ST 81,83,87,89,92,95,97 Motivational ST 81,83,88,89,92,97 Positive ST 83,84,85,86,88,96 Note. Superscripted numbers refer to articles as listed in Table A1.…”

“…talk interventions: instructional self-talk(Lane et al, 2016) and motivational selftalk(Ferreira et al, 2016) interventions. In addition, self-talk is described in strategic self-talk intervention research as cue words, prompts, or statements(Angeli et al, 2018;Hatzigeorgiadis et al, 2004) that are used as an intervention(Cumming et al, 2006;Girodo & Roehl, 1978) or experimental condition(Thomaes et al, 2020;Turner et al, 2018).…”

Instructional cues in the teaching of dribbling in school physical education classes

“…In other words, a cue comprises a knowledge about what is needed to get performance successful. For instance, the cue "eye on the ball" is suggested to direct the student's attention to the trajectory of a ball to be hit because it facilitates the information processing of anticipatory and coincident timing [18]. However, since the cue is expected to be closely related to the task specificity [19], student could also use it in countless situations that require the performer's attunement with a moving object in order to touch or hit it (e.g., football, volleyball, baseball, and cricket.…”