Influence of Attentional Focus Instructions on Motor Performance Among Adolescents With Severe Visual Impairment

2019 ◽  
Vol 126 (6) ◽  
pp. 1145-1157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott W. T. McNamara ◽  
Kevin A. Becker ◽  
William Weigel ◽  
Peter Marcy ◽  
Justin Haegele

Substantial research has demonstrated that an external (vs. internal) attentional focus enhances motor performance among various populations. Interest has recently grown in examining the effects of attentional focus among individuals with visual impairments (VI), and, to date, research results have been conflicting with some studies supporting a potential benefit to an external focus among adults with VI, while a study of children with severe VI was inconclusive regarding this benefit. The present investigation compared the effects of an internal versus an external attentional focus on a discrete throwing task among adolescents with severe VI. We recruited 13 participants with a visual acuity score of less than 6/60 and had them throw a Goalball (25 cm ball with bells often used in competitive sports designed for people with VI) as fast as possible for three familiarization trials, three internal focus trials, and three external focus trials. These participants threw the ball with significantly higher velocity when using an external focus than in other conditions, indicating a benefit from an external focus for this population when performing this discrete task.

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Rossettini ◽  
Marco Testa ◽  
Marco Vicentini ◽  
Paolo Manganotti

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-247
Author(s):  
Ayşe Nur Ay ◽  
Yaşar Barış Dolukan ◽  
Mustafa Zahid Yıldız

Many researchers have been investigated the effect of focusing type on motor performance and muscular activity. Studies have showed that focusing on movement effects, i.e., an external focus enhances motor performance whereas, reduces muscular activity compare to focusing on body movements, i.e., an internal focus. The purpose of present study was to determine whether focusing externally had any effect on reduction of Electromyographic activity of performers. In this study, 16 participants were asked to perform weight lifting under control (no instructions are given), external (focusing on dumbbell) and internal (focusing on biceps brachii muscle) conditions. The EMG data were acquired via DELSYS EMG System and monitored on LabVIEW. RMSE values were calculated to compare the EMG activities under each conditions. The results showed that the EMG activity was significantly reduced under external focus condition.


Author(s):  
Masahiro Yamada ◽  
Lauren Q. Higgins ◽  
Louisa Raisbeck

The external focus and internal focus effects on motor performance and skill acquisition have been extensively examined and reviewed in laboratory research. However, the use of attentional focus in the field has not been summarized. Therefore, the present study conducted a systematic review of literature regarding the use of external/internal focus by practitioners (therapists and coaches) and recipients (patients and athletes). From 1999 to 2020, twelve studies examined how external/internal focus were used in the field. Results showed both therapists and coaches predominantly used internal focus; athletes tended to use more internal focus but varied by sports; and attentional focus varied between practice and competition. Additionally, the present review also consistently found that external/internal focus accounted for a small proportion relative to other foci outside the external/internal focus paradigm. Importantly, the differences in results were largely dependent upon the type of assessment ( e.g. closed-ended and open-ended questionnaires). Future research needs to investigate the relative importance of external/internal focus as opposed to other foci, as well as that affect a shift of attentional focus from one type to another.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louisa D. Raisbeck ◽  
Jed A. Diekfuss

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Somaye Roshandel ◽  
Hamidreza Taheri ◽  
Amir Moghadam

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 126 (3) ◽  
pp. 446-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Kunimura ◽  
Masakazu Matsuoka ◽  
Naoki Hamada ◽  
Koichi Hiraoka

The present study examined whether an internal or external attentional focus would affect participants’ feet-in-place balance response to postural stance perturbations. A movable platform automatically slid forward or backward while healthy participants stood on it and (a) performed no cognitive activity (control), (b) focused on the pelvis or upper body sway (internal focus), (c) memorized a number displayed immediately before the platform slid (external focus), or (d) kept the equilibrium of an unstable cylinder over the arm (external focus). The forward displacement of the pelvis induced by the platform sliding forward was smaller when participants focused on their pelvic sway, although such effect was absent when they focused on their upper body sway, indicating that the internal focus was effective for the postural response when attention was paid to the pelvic sway. Regarding an external attention focus, the forward displacement of the pelvis induced by the platform sliding forward was smaller when participants focused on the equilibrium of an unstable object over the arm, but this effect was absent when they focused on the number, indicating that an external focus was only effective when the unstable object focused upon was relevant to the equilibrium of one’s own body. No attentional intervention was effective during backward sliding of the support surface, indicating that central set for responding to postural perturbation depends on the direction of the postural perturbation.


2001 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1143-1154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Wulf ◽  
Nancy McNevin ◽  
Charles H. Shea

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.


2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Wulf ◽  
Sebastian Wächter ◽  
Stefan Wortmann

Recently, researchers in the motor learning area have shown that instructions to direct the learner’s attention to their body movements (i.e., induce an internal focus) – such as those typically used in applied settings – are less effective than instructions directing attention to the movement effects (i.e., inducing an external focus). Under the assumption that females tend to be more concerned about performing a movement correctly than males, who might be more inclined to focus on the outcome of their actions, the purpose of the present study was to examine whether females would benefit more from external-focus instructions than males. Female and male high-school students practiced a soccer instep kick with instructions that either induced an internal or external focus of attention. Subsequent retention (stationary ball) and transfer (moving ball) tests without instructions were performed to assess learning. The female group that was given internal-focus instructions during practice showed a greater performance decrement from retention to transfer than all other groups. This provides support for the view that the type of attentional focus induced by instructions might be particularly relevant for females, and that females might show greater learning advantages when provided with external-focus instructions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-468
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Almonroeder ◽  
Emily Watkins ◽  
Tricia Widenhoefer

Context: The bodyweight squat exercise is a common component for treatment and prevention of patellofemoral pain; however, it can also place a high load on the patellofemoral joint. Restricting anterior motion of the knees relative to the toes during squatting appears to reduce patellofemoral loading. However, exercise professionals typically rely on verbal instructions to alter squat technique. Objective: To evaluate the influence of verbal instructions regarding squat technique on patellofemoral joint loading. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Motion analysis laboratory. Participants: Eleven uninjured females. Intervention: Participants performed bodyweight squats before (baseline) and after receiving verbal instructions to limit anterior knee motion. Two different types of verbal instruction were used, one intended to promote an internal focus of attention and the other intended to promote an external focus of attention. Three-dimensional kinematics and kinetics were recorded using a multicamera system and force plate. Main Outcome Measures: Sagittal plane patellofemoral joint forces and stress were estimated using a musculoskeletal model. Results: Participants demonstrated a reduction in patellofemoral joint forces (35.4 vs 31.3 N/kg; P = .01) and stress (10.7 vs 9.2 mPa; P = .002) after receiving instructions promoting an internal focus of attention, compared with their baseline trials. Participants also demonstrated a reduction in patellofemoral joint forces (35.4 vs 32.3 N/kg; P = .03) and stress (10.7 vs 9.6 mPa; P = .04) after receiving instructions promoting an external focus of attention (vs baseline). However, there were no significant differences in patellofemoral forces (P = .84) or stress (P = .41) for trials performed with an internal versus external attentional focus. Conclusion: It appears that verbal instruction regarding knee position influences patellofemoral joint loading during squatting.


2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adina Mornell ◽  
Gabriele Wulf

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document