scholarly journals The Effect of Different Attentional Focus Instructions during Finger Movement Tasks in Healthy Subjects: An Exploratory Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Rossettini ◽  
Marco Testa ◽  
Marco Vicentini ◽  
Paolo Manganotti
Keyword(s):  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Motor Performance ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Finger Movement ◽  
External Focus ◽  
Internal Focus ◽  
And Control

External focus of attention (EFA) and internal focus of attention (IFA) represent commonly used strategies to instruct subjects during exercise. Several studies showed EFA to be more effective than IFA to improve motor performance and learning. To date the role of these strategies on motor performance during finger movement was less studied. The objective of the study was to investigate motor performance, patient’s preference induced by IFA and EFA, and the focus during control condition. Ten healthy right-handed participants performed a finger movement task in control, EFA, and IFA conditions (counterbalanced). Errors, patient’s preference, and type of attentional focus spontaneously adopted during the control condition were recorded. EFA determined less error (p<0.01) compared to control and IFA. Participants preferred EFA against IFA and control condition. In the control group 10% of subjects adopted a purely EFA, 70% of subjects adopted a purely IFA, and 20% of subjects adopted a mixture of the two foci. Our results confirm that EFA is more effective than IFA and control in finger movement task. Due its clinical relevance, the interaction between attention and finger movement should be further investigated.

Adopting an External Focus of Attention Enhances Musical Performance

2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adina Mornell ◽  
Gabriele Wulf
Keyword(s):  
Music Teachers ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Musical Expression ◽  
External Focus ◽  
Internal Focus ◽  
Focus Condition ◽  
And Performance ◽  
And Control

Two experiments are reported in which skilled musicians playing different instruments performed a piece of their choice under various attentional focus conditions. In the external focus condition, they were asked to focus on playing for the audience and the expressive sound of the music. In the internal focus condition, they were asked to focus on the precision of their finger movements (or lip movements for singers) and correct notes. In the control condition, they were asked to play the way they normally did. Expert raters evaluated the musicians’ performances for both musical expression and technical precision. In Experiment 1, external focus instructions enhanced musical expression relative to both internal focus and control conditions. There was no effect on technical precision. In Experiment 2, raters were given more detailed evaluation criteria. An external focus again led to superior musical expression compared with internal focus and control conditions. In addition, technical precision was higher within the external relative to the internal focus condition. The findings show that the advantages of focusing on the intended movement effect (i.e., externally) generalize to experienced musicians. Music teachers could offer their students specific recommendations for focus of attention during training and in concert situations to optimize learning and performance.

Increases in Jump-and-Reach Height through an External Focus of Attention

2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Wulf ◽  
Tiffany Zachry ◽  
Carolina Granados ◽  
Janet S. Dufek
Keyword(s):  
Vertical Jump ◽  
Center Of Mass ◽  
Force Production ◽  
Vertical Displacement ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
External Focus ◽  
Internal Focus ◽  
Focus Condition ◽  
And Control

The present study examined whether the previously observed benefits of an external focus of attention (i.e., focusing on the movement effect), relative to an internal focus (i.e., focusing on one's body movements) and control conditions, would generalize to tasks requiring maximum force production, such as jumping. In two experiments, participants performed a vertical jump-and-reach task. A Vertec™ measurement device was used to determine jump-and-reach height. Participants performed under three conditions in a within-participant design: External focus (i.e., focus on the rungs of the Vertec that were to be touched), internal focus (i.e., focus on the finger, with which the rungs were to be touched), and control conditions (i.e., focus on jumping as high as possible). Experiment 1 showed that participants' jump-and-reach height was greatest with an external focus. Those results were replicated in Experiment 2. In addition, it was observed that the vertical displacement of the center of mass was greater under the external focus condition, compared to the other two conditions. This suggests that participants jumped higher by producing greater forces when they adopted an external focus. These findings indicate that the previously shown benefits of an external attentional focus generalize to tasks requiring maximal force production

scholarly journals Is an external focus of attention more beneficial than an internal focus to ball catching in children?

Kinesiology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Abdollahipour ◽  
Rudolf Psotta
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Frontal Plane ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Tennis Ball ◽  
External Focus ◽  
Internal Focus ◽  
Yellow Line ◽  
Tennis Balls ◽  
And Control

The performance benefits of adopting an external relative to an internal focus of attention have been demonstrated for many different targeting and balance tasks. No study has examined attentional focus effects for interceptive motor skills. Also, the majority of studies have used adult participants. In this study, children (mean age: 8.75 years, SD=0.79; 15 girls, 9 boys) were required to catch tennis balls in the frontal plane under the external focus (EF), internal focus (IF), and control (Cont) conditions. Participants were asked to stand behind a yellow line (2 × 100 cm), 15 m apart from a tennis ball throwing machine. In a within-participant design, participants performed 10 trials under each IF (“concentrate on your hands”), EF (“concentrate on the ball”), or Cont (no focus instructions) conditions. The order of conditions was counterbalanced. Performance data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on attentional focus conditions (internal, external, and control) (alpha=.05). Catching performance was significantly different&nbsp;and more effective in the EF (M=1.53, SD=0.25) than in the IF (M=1.39, SD=0.35) condition, while both EF and IF were not significantly different from the Cont (M=1.49, SD=0.28) condition. The current findings suggest that the external focus of attention is more beneficial, compared to the internal focus, to motor performance of an interceptive skill in children.

scholarly journals Children's learning of tennis skills is facilitated by external focus instructions

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 418-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Hadler ◽  
Suzete Chiviacowsky ◽  
Gabriele Wulf ◽  
José Francisco Gomes Schild
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Skill Learning ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Practice Phase ◽  
External Focus ◽  
Internal Focus ◽  
Tennis Balls ◽  
Tennis Skills

The present study examined the effects of instructions promoting external versus internal foci of attention on the learning of a tennis forehand stroke in 11-year old children. Three groups of participants practiced hitting tennis balls at a target. External focus group participants were instructed to direct their attention to the movement of the racquet, while participants in the internal focus group were asked to direct their attention to the movements of their arm. Participants in a control group did not receive attentional focus instructions. Two days after the practice phase (60 trials), learning was assessed in retention and transfer tests. The results showed that the external focus group demonstrated greater accuracy in hitting a target relative to the two other groups in retention, and relative to the internal focus group in transfer. We conclude that instructions inducing an external focus of attention can enhance children's sport skill learning.

scholarly journals The effects of combining focus of attention and autonomy support on shot accuracy in the penalty kick

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hubert Makaruk ◽  
Jared M. Porter ◽  
Jerzy Sadowski ◽  
Anna Bodasińska ◽  
Janusz Zieliński ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Motor Performance ◽  
Autonomy Support ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Motivational Factors ◽  
External Focus ◽  
Following Instructions ◽  
Optimal Theory ◽  
Internal Focus ◽  
And Control ◽  
As If

AbstractThe penalty kick is of great importance in the sport of soccer. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test predictions of the OPTIMAL theory and identify key attentional and motivational factors that impact the accuracy of the penalty kick. The following six groups of skilled participants performed penalty kicks following instructions that directed their focus of attention or impacted their autonomy support: external focus with autonomy support (EF/AS), external focus alone (EF), internal focus with autonomy support (IF/AS), internal focus alone (IF), autonomy support alone (AS) and control (C) groups. The analysis showed that the EF/AS group demonstrated better kicking accuracy relatively to the IF/AS, IF and C groups, but there were no significant differences between the EF/AS and EF or AS groups. Interestingly, the EF/AS group showed higher self-efficacy compared to the EF, IF/AS, IF and C groups. The finding suggest that a combination of attentional and motivational factors may produce benefits in motor performance.

Verbal Cues and Attentional Focus: A Simulated Target-Shooting Experiment

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louisa D. Raisbeck ◽  
Jed A. Diekfuss
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Verbal Cues ◽  
Task Load ◽  
External Focus ◽  
Gun Barrel ◽  
Internal Focus ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Nasa Task Load Index ◽  
Learning And Performance

Performance benefits exist for an external focus of attention compared with an internal focus of attention for performance and learning (Wulf, 2013). It is unknown, however, if varying the number of verbal cues affects learning and performance. Focus of attention and the number of verbal cues were manipulated during a simulated handgun-shooting task. For the internal focus conditions, participants were told to focus on their hand, arm, and wrist, whereas the external focus instructions were to focus on the gun, gun barrel, and gun stock. To manipulate the number of verbal cues, participants received instruction to focus on a single verbal cue or multiple verbal cues. Shooting performance was assessed at baseline, acquisition, and at two separate retention phases (immediate, delayed) that included transfer tests. Participants completed the NASA—Task Load Index to assess workload following all trials. Participants who received one verbal cue performed significantly better during immediate retention than those who received three verbal cues. Participants who used external focus of attention instructions had higher performance and reported less workload at delayed retention compared to those who used internal focus instructions. This research provides further support for the benefits of an external focus and highlights the importance of minimizing the number of verbal cues.

scholarly journals Do Children Benefit External Focus of Attention as Much as Adults? A Motor Learning Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Somaye Roshandel ◽  
Hamidreza Taheri ◽  
Amir Moghadam
Keyword(s):  
Motor Skills ◽  
Retention Test ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Learning Study ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
External Focus ◽  
Internal Focus ◽  
And Task

Recent evidence supports advantages of an external focus of attention on learning motor skills, however, there is a need to retest these finding for children and comparing them with adults. Thus, the purpose of current study was to determine the effect of different attentional focus on learning a motor skill in children and adults. Thirty children (8-12 year) and thirty adults (25-42 years) were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) Children external focus of attention (EFA), (2) Children- internal focus of attention (IFA), (3) Adults- External focus of attention (EFA), (4) Adults- internal focus of attention (IFA). Following initial instructions and task demonstration, participants performed 60 darts throwing in six blocks and 24 hours later performed 10 additional throws for retention test. Results revealed that children benefited from EFA and IFA instruction in the same manner, however, adults benefited from EFA more than IFA instruction. Future studies should continue to examine effects of different attentional focus on other skills.

scholarly journals The Effect of External Attentional Focus and Self-Controlled Feedback on Motor Learning in Older Adults

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-13
Author(s):  
Sima Razaghi ◽  
Esmaeel Saemi ◽  
Rasool Abedanzadeh
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Motor Learning ◽  
Retention Test ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
The Other ◽  
Acquisition Phase ◽  
Control Group ◽  
External Focus ◽  
Mixed Anova

AbstractIntroduction. External focus instruction and self-controlled feedback have beneficial effects on motor learning. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the benefits of combined effects of external focus instruction and self-controlled feedback on balance performance in older adults.Material and Methods. Forty older adults (mean age: 63.21 ± 3.6 years; all female) were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups: self-controlled feedback, external attention, external attention/self-controlled feedback and control group. The task of standing on the platform of the stabilometer device and trying to keep the platform horizontally as much as possible was performed in each 30-sec. trial. The participants of self-controlled group received feedback on the timing of balance after the trials. In the external focus of attention, participants noticed the signs that were located horizontally ahead of their feet. The test was conducted in two sessions. In the acquisition phase, 10 trials of 30 seconds were performed and the retention test was completed 24 hours later as 5 trials of 30 seconds.Results. The results of mixed ANOVA on time data as an indicator of balance in the acquisition phase showed that the mixed group of external focus of attention and self-controlled feedback had better performance than the other groups (p = 0.004). In the retention test, the results of mixed ANOVA showed that the participants in the combined group of external focus and self-controlled feedback had better performance than the other groups (p = 0.006). The external focus of attention and self-controlled feedback performed similarly, and both were superior to the control group (p < 0.05).Conclusions. The results of this study, supporting the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning in the elderly, showed that the combination of two factors of external focus and self-controlled feedback has a double advantage over the presence of each of the factors. Therefore, it is suggested that the combinations of external focus instructions and self-controlled feedback should be used to improve performance and motor learning in the classes of practical and clinical rehabilitation fields.

Predictive value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-neutrophil ratio, and neutrophil-to-monocyte ratio in lupus nephritis

Lupus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 1031-1039
Author(s):  
Peng Liu ◽  
Peiyuan Li ◽  
Zhong Peng ◽  
Yazhou Xiang ◽  
Chenqi Xia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lupus Nephritis ◽  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Neutrophil To Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves ◽  
Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
And Control ◽  
First Time

Objective To evaluate the role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-to-neutrophil ratio (PNR), platelet-to-monocyte ratio (PMR), and neutrophil-to-monocyte ratio (NMR) as predictors for lupus nephritis (LN) patients without infection or as biomarkers for distinguishing between infection or flare with LN patients. Methods LN patients were divided into three groups: LN without infection, LN with infection, and LN with flare. A total of 57 healthy subjects were enrolled as controls. The differentiation was analyzed between LN without infection and control group, and LN with infection and LN with flare. Correlations among variables were assessed in the LN group without infection. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed in two comparable groups. Results NLR, PLR, and MLR were increased significantly in the LN group without infection as compared with those in healthy controls. NLR (area under the curve (AUC): 0.75) and MLR (AUC: 0.79) were useful for distinguishing between LN patients without infection and healthy subjects. In differentiating LN patients without infection from the controls, optimal cutoffs of NLR and MLR were 3.43 (sensitivity: 45.6%, specificity: 96.5%, and overall accuracy: 68.8%) and 0.24 (sensitivity: 75.0%, specificity: 73.7%, and overall accuracy: 73.6%), respectively. In addition, NLR ( r = 0.322, p = 0.011) and PLR ( r = 0.283, p = 0.026) were positively correlated with CRP. Importantly, NLR and NMR were increased while PNR was decreased in the LN group with infection in comparison with those in the LN group with flare. NLR (AUC: 0.80), NMR (AUC: 0.78), and PNR (AUC: 0.74) were useful in differentiating LN patients with infection and flare, and their optimal cutoffs were 4.02 (sensitivity: 82.6%, specificity: 69.6%, and overall accuracy: 75.5%), 12.19 (sensitivity: 80.4%, specificity: 73.9%, and overall accuracy: 77.5%), and 28.26 (sensitivity: 65.2%, specificity: 76.8%, and overall accuracy: 71.6%), respectively. Conclusions We demonstrated, for the first time, that MLR or NMR had the best accuracy in differentiating LN patients without infection from healthy subjects, or differentiating infection from flare in LN patients, respectively. Our results implied that NLR, MLR, PNR, and NMR may be useful biomarkers in predicting LN.

The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus

2001 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1143-1154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Wulf ◽  
Nancy McNevin ◽  
Charles H. Shea
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Dynamic Balance ◽  
Attentional Focus ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Skill Learning ◽  
External Focus ◽  
Control Processes ◽  
Attention Focus ◽  
Balance Task ◽  
Internal Focus

The present experiment was designed to test the predictions of the constrained-action hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that when performers utilize an internal focus of attention (focus on their movements) they may actually constrain or interfere with automatic control processes that would normally regulate the movement, whereas an external focus of attention (focus on the movement effect) allows the motor system to more naturally self-organize. To test this hypothesis, a dynamic balance task (stabilometer) was used with participants instructed to adopt either an internal or external focus of attention. Consistent with earlier experiments, the external focus group produced generally smaller balance errors than did the internal focus group and responded at a higher frequency indicating higher confluence between voluntary and reflexive mechanisms. In addition, probe reaction times (RTs) were taken as a measure of the attention demands required under the two attentional focus conditions. Consistent with the hypothesis, the external focus participants demonstrated lower probe RTs than did the internal focus participants, indicating a higher degree of automaticity and less conscious interference in the control processes associated with the balance task.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document