The use of multiple externally directed attentional focus cues facilitates motor learning

Abstract

Attentional focus research consistently suggests that the use of an external focus of attention improves motor learning and performance relative to an internal focus. It appears, however, that external focus cues are not frequently adopted in applied sport settings. One issue that may contribute to this disparity relates to variability in how cues are employed in research and practice. Experimental research tends to use a single-cue approach, while in sports, athletes often sample several cues within the same practice. A limitation of the single-cue approach is that attentional focus effects could be due either to focus direction (internal vs. external) or to the relative effectiveness of a particular cue (e.g. an effective externally focused cue vs. an ineffective internally focused cue). This study tested whether external focus benefits generalize to situations in which participants use multiple cues of the same type throughout acquisition. Volunteers ( N = 22) learned a dart throwing task while using three internally or externally focused cues. Results indicated an external focus led to lower error scores during acquisition and a delayed retention test ( p’s < .05). These results demonstrate that the external focus benefit generalizes to situations where a performer uses multiple cues.

Can Exergames Be Improved to Better Enhance Behavioral Adaptability in Older Adults? An Ecological Dynamics Perspective

“…It can be achieved by making some aspects of the environment more salient, while blocking others (Raja and Calvo, 2017) and/or by including additional cues, thanks to Augmented Reality (AR). In this aim, the most important information to be picked up must be identified to be subsequently used to direct the attentional focus in order to facilitate affordance perception and learning (Wulf, 2013;Becker and Fairbrother, 2019). Manipulation of constraints related to tasks, individual, or environment (Newell, 1985) allows providing variables conditions that force the exerplayer to explore and discover the optimal solution (Rudd et al, 2020).…”

Attentional Focus and Individuals’ Perceptions: A Systematic Review

“…Of the seven studies that provided sufficient statistical information, two studies asked about general adherence and the five others asked about the magnitude of adherence. Among the five experiments that assessed the magnitude of adherence, two experiments (Abdollahipour et al, 2019;Land, Frank, & Schack, 2014) included attentional focus cues in the question, which may have biased participants' responses, leaving three experiments that assessed the magnitude with no potential biases (Abdollahipour, Nieto, Psotta, & Wulf, 2017;Becker & Fairbrother, 2019;Raisbeck, Yamada, Diekfuss, & Kuznetsov, 2020). Regardless of the methodological differences, the results of the general adherence to the assigned attentional focus instruction were consistent: 83.3% (30/36) experiments reported that participants adhered to the assigned instructions, ranging from 67% to 100%.…”

“…Regardless of the methodological differences, the results of the general adherence to the assigned attentional focus instruction were consistent: 83.3% (30/36) experiments reported that participants adhered to the assigned instructions, ranging from 67% to 100%. For the magnitude of adherence, focusing on the experiments that adopted inferential statistics, one experiment resulted in a higher adherence to an internal focus relative to an external focus (Becker & Smith, 2013), one experiment reported higher adherence to an external focus compared with an internal focus (Raisbeck et al, 2020), while three others showed no difference in the magnitude of adherence between the external and internal focus conditions Becker & Fairbrother, 2019;Marchant et al, 2007).…”

The Influence of Attentional Focus on the Learning of Long-distance Throwing

“…3 Wulf and Su, 2007 1 60 2 Abdollahipour et al, 2014;Sherwood et al, 2016Oliveira et al, 2013;Shafizadeh et al, 2011Perreault and French, 2015Wulf et al, 2003Chow et al 2014Komar et al 2014Chu et al, 2009Stodden et al, 2006Peh et al 2011 1 Becker and Fairbrother, 2019;Brocken et al, 2016;Chiviacowsky et al, 2010;Saemi et al, 20132 Perreault and French, 2015…”