Search

Considerable literature on the role of attentional focus in motor performance and learning has accumulated for over two decades. We report the results of comprehensive meta-analyses that address the impact of an external focus (EF, on intended movement effects) versus internal focus (IF, on movements of body parts) of attention on the performance and learning of motor skills. Values of effect sizes (ES) from 73 studies with 1,824 participants and 40 studies with 1,274 participants were used for examining the effects of EF versus IF on behavioral outcomes of motor performance and learning (separately for retention and transfer phases) respectively. The EF condition was more effective than the IF condition for performance, Hedges' g value = 0.264 (95% CI [0.217, 0.310]), retention learning, Hedges' g value = 0.583 (95% CI [0.425, 0.741]), and transfer learning, Hedges' g value = 0.584 (95% CI [0.325, 0.842]). Multivariable metaregression analyses on behavioral measures further indicated that neither age group, health status, or skill level, nor their two-way interactions, moderated the ES differences between EF and IF in performance, retention, and transfer models (all p > .100). A secondary analysis on 12 studies with 216 participants that examined the effects of EF versus IF on electromyographic outcomes of motor performance also indicated that EF was associated with more efficient neuromuscular processing, Hedges' g value = 0.833 (95% CI [0.453, 1.213]). From nine studies with 272 participants, performance measured by behavioral outcomes was found to be more effective when a more distal, rather than proximal, EF was used, Hedges' g value = 0.224 (95% CI [0.019, 0.429]). Overall, the meta-analytic results are consistent with prior narrative reviews and indicate that an external focus is superior to an internal focus whether considering tests of motor performance or learning, and regardless of age, health condition, and level of skill expertise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Studies have demonstrated a benefit to performance and learning of a distal relative to a proximal external focus of attention. That is, focusing on a movement effect that occurs at a greater distance from the body has been found to be more effective than concentrating on a movement effect closer to the body. The present study examined the distance effect in skilled kayakers performing an open, continuous skill. Participants (n = 27) performed a wild water racing sprint of 100 m on Class 2 water. Using a within-participants design, a distal external focus ("Focus on the finish") was compared to a proximal external focus ("Focus on the paddle") as well as to a control condition. The distal focus condition (30.63 s, SD = 3.21) resulted in significantly shorter sprint times than did the proximal (32.07 s, SD = 3.27) and the control (31.96 s, SD = 3.58) conditions (ps < 0.001). The effect size was large (η p 2  = 0.53). There was no significant difference between the proximal and control condition (p = 1.00). The findings demonstrate the importance of adopting a distal, rather than proximal, external focus for skilled athletes performing open, continuous skills under time pressure., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning identifies several motivational and attentional factors that draw out latent motor performance capabilities. One implication of the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016) is that standardized motor performance assessments likely do not reflect maximal capabilities unless they are "optimized" with appropriate testing conditions. The present study examined the effects of three key motivational (enhanced expectancies, EE, and autonomy support, AS) and attentional (external focus, EF) variables in the OPTIMAL theory on maximum force production. In Experiment 1, a handgrip strength task was used. EE, AS, and EF were implemented, in a counterbalanced order, on consecutive trial blocks in an optimized group. A control group performed all blocks under neutral conditions. While there were no group differences on Block 1 (baseline), the optimized group outperformed the control group on all other blocks. In Experiment 2, participants performed two one-repetition maximum (1-RM) squat lift tests, separated by one week. Two groups, an optimized group and control group, had similar 1-RM values on the first test performed under neutral conditions. However, on the second test, a group performing under optimized conditions (EE, AS, EF) showed an increase in 1-RM, while there was no change from the first to the second test for a control group. We argue that standard test conditions may not produce true maximal performance. The findings corroborate the importance of key factors in the OPTIMAL theory and should be applied to ensure accurate strength performance assessment., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning identifies motivational (enhanced expectancies, EE, and autonomy support, AS) and attentional (an external attentional focus, EF) factors that affect motor performance and learning [1]. One implication of this theory is that standardized clinical and laboratory assessments of physical capacity and motor performance that do not incorporate optimizing conditions may underestimate true maximal capabilities. The influence of "optimized" conditions on a clinical-applied test of balance control was examined with healthy participants. Given the motor performance benefits of optimized conditions predicted by the OPTIMAL theory, it was hypothesized that providing participants with information that induced EE, provided them with AS, and promoted their use of EF would reduce balance errors and postural sway., Methods: We used as an exemplar assessment, the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS), and center-of-pressure (COP) velocity measurements of postural sway. Participants performed under two different conditions, separated by two days: an optimized (EE, AS, and EF) condition and a control ("neutral") condition, with sample-wide order counterbalancing. In each condition, participants performed three stances (double-leg, single-leg, and tandem) on two support surfaces (firm and foam). Stance order was participant-determined in the optimized condition and, for the control condition, yoked to a participant in the optimized condition., Results: Participants committed fewer balance errors in the optimized condition than in the control condition (p < .001) and their resultant COP velocity in the optimized condition was lower than that in the control condition (p = .004). BESS scores were correlated with resultant COP velocity (r = .593, p < .001)., Significance: Our results demonstrated the impact of implementing optimized, as opposed to "neutral" control, conditions for better insight into balance capabilities in normal and challenging situations. Practitioners' roles in mediating test situations and using subtle wording to promote optimized performance may have consequential impacts on motor assessment outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no competing financial interests., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Variability in practice has been shown to enhance motor skill learning. Benefits of practice variability have been attributed to motor schema formation (variable versus constant practice), or more effortful information processing (random versus blocked practice). We hypothesized that, among other mechanisms, greater practice variability might promote an external focus of attention on the intended movement effect, while less variability would be more conducive to a less effective internal focus on body movements. In Experiment 1, the learning of a throwing task was enhanced by variable versus constant practice, and variable group participants reported focusing more on the distance to the target (external focus), while constant group participants focused more on their posture (internal focus). In Experiment 2, golf putting was learned more effectively with a random compared with a blocked practice schedule. Furthermore, random group learners reported using a more effective distal external focus (i.e., distance to the target) to a greater extent, whereas blocked group participants used a less effective proximal focus (i.e., putter) more often. While attentional focus was assessed through questionnaires in the first two experiments, learners in Experiment 3 were asked to report their current attentional focus at any time during practice. Again, the learning of a throwing task was more effective after random relative to blocked practice. Also, random practice learners reported using more external focus cues, while in blocked practice participants used more internal focus cues. The findings suggest that the attentional foci induced by different practice schedules might be at least partially responsible for the learning differences., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning [Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1382-1414], 3 factors are postulated to facilitate learning: enhanced expectancies (EE) for performance, autonomy support (AS), and an external focus (EF) of attention. In 3 recent studies, combinations of 2 of these variables resulted in superior learning relative to the presence of only 1 variable, or none. We examined whether the combination of all 3 factors would enhance learning relative to combinations of 2 factors. Our design included EE-AS, EE-EF, AS-EF, and AS-EE-EF groups. Participants threw balls at a target with their non-dominant arm. In the EE conditions, they received positive social-comparative feedback. In the AS conditions, they were allowed to throw with their dominant arm on trial blocks chosen by them. In the EF conditions, participants were asked to focus on the target. On a delayed retention test, the AS-EE-EF group outperformed all other groups. The findings provide evidence that enhanced expectancies, autonomy support, and an external focus can contribute in an additive fashion to optimize motor learning.

Effective motor performance is important for surviving and thriving, and skilled movement is critical in many activities. Much theorizing over the past few decades has focused on how certain practice conditions affect the processing of task-related information to affect learning. Yet, existing theoretical perspectives do not accommodate significant recent lines of evidence demonstrating motivational and attentional effects on performance and learning. These include research on (a) conditions that enhance expectancies for future performance, (b) variables that influence learners' autonomy, and (c) an external focus of attention on the intended movement effect. We propose the OPTIMAL (Optimizing Performance through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning) theory of motor learning. We suggest that motivational and attentional factors contribute to performance and learning by strengthening the coupling of goals to actions. We provide explanations for the performance and learning advantages of these variables on psychological and neuroscientific grounds. We describe a plausible mechanism for expectancy effects rooted in responses of dopamine to the anticipation of positive experience and temporally associated with skill practice. Learner autonomy acts perhaps largely through an enhanced expectancy pathway. Furthermore, we consider the influence of an external focus for the establishment of efficient functional connections across brain networks that subserve skilled movement. We speculate that enhanced expectancies and an external focus propel performers' cognitive and motor systems in productive "forward" directions and prevent "backsliding" into self- and non-task focused states. Expected success presumably breeds further success and helps consolidate memories. We discuss practical implications and future research directions.

Focus of attention and its effects on skilled motor performance has become an important line of research in the motor learning domain. Numerous studies have demonstrated that an external focus of attention (i.e., on the movement effect) enhances motor performance and learning relative to an internal focus (i.e., on body movements). Thus, small differences in the wording of instructions or feedback given by teachers can have a significant impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of motor skill performance. In this paper, we review some of the attentional focus studies that are relevant to ballet performance. In addition, we report the findings of a survey among professional ballet dancers (N = 53) that we conducted to determine their typical attentional focus while performing certain movements. The results showed that the majority adopted internal foci, or combinations of internal and external foci, most of the time. This suggests that there is room for improvement for performance and teaching. We provide examples of how external foci can be promoted in ballet practice.

In this invited response to a Letter to the Editor by Carson, Collins, and Toner (2015), I comment on various issues raised by the authors. I highlight the broad range of tasks and dependent measures used in studies comparing the effectiveness of external versus internal foci of attention. These studies--many of which involved sport skills--have consistently found performance or learning benefits when an external focus was adopted. There is no convincing evidence that performers' preferences, or their familiarity with a certain focus, have a moderating effect. Anecdotal evidence reported by coaches who have compared the two types of foci is consistent with research findings. An external focus presumably promotes functional connectivity and contributes to goal-action coupling.

The authors examined the individual and combined influences of 2 factors that have been shown to benefit motor learning: an external focus of attention and enhanced performance expectancies. Another purpose of this study was to gain further insight into the mechanisms underlying these variables. In a factorial design, participants learning a novel motor skill (i.e., throwing with the non-dominant arm) were or were not given external focus instructions, and were or were not provided bogus positive social-comparative feedback to enhance their expectancies. This resulted in 4 groups: external focus, enhanced expectancy, external focus/enhanced expectancy and control. External focus instructions and enhanced expectancies had additive benefits for learning: the external focus/enhanced expectancy group demonstrated the greatest throwing accuracy on both retention and transfer tests, while the accuracy scores of the external focus and enhanced expectancy groups were lower, but higher than those of the control group. Furthermore, self-efficacy was increased by both external focus and enhanced expectancy, and predicted retention and transfer performance. Positive affect was heightened in the enhanced expectancy and external focus/enhanced expectancy groups after practice and predicted transfer performance. The findings suggest that the learning benefits of an external focus and enhanced expectancies mediate learning through partially different mechanisms.

The present study was designed to fill a gap in the literature on attentional focus and sports performance. Specifically, in contrast to most previous studies in which an external focus was directed at an implement, we used a gymnastics skill that did not involve the use of an implement. Furthermore, while most studies used only outcome measures of performance, we also assessed movement quality. Twelve-year-old gymnasts performed a maximum vertical jump with a 180-degree turn while airborne, with their hands crossing in front of their chest during the turn under three different focus conditions. Under the external focus condition, participants were asked to focus on the direction in which a tape marker, which was attached to their chest, was pointing after the turn. Under the internal focus condition, they were asked to focus on the direction in which their hands were pointing after the turn. Under the control condition, no focus instructions were given. The external focus condition resulted in both superior movement form and greater jump height than did the other two conditions, which produced comparable results. The present findings show that, similar to other tasks, the performance of form-based skills can be enhanced relatively easily by appropriate external focus instructions.

Background: The present study examined whether the learning benefits of an external focus of attention (i.e., on the movement effect) relative to an internal focus (i.e. on the movement), found previously in non-disabled children and adults would also be found in children with intellectual disabilities (IDs)., Methods: Participants (n = 24; average age: 12.2 years) with mild intellectual deficiency (IQ = 51-69) practiced throwing beanbags at a target. In the external focus group, participants were instructed to direct their attention to the movement of the beanbag, while in the internal focus group, participants were asked to direct their attention to the movement of their hand. The practice phase consisted of 40 trials, and attentional focus reminders were given after every third trial. Learning was assessed 1 day later by retention and transfer (greater target distance) tests, each consisting of 10 trials. No focus reminders were given on that day., Results: The external focus group demonstrated more effective learning than the internal focus group, as evidenced by more accurate tosses on the transfer test., Conclusions: The present findings show that instructions that induce an external focus of attention can enhance motor learning in children with IDs., (© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, MENCAP & IASSID.)

Studies with young adults have shown that an external focus of attention (i.e., on the movement effect) results in more effective motor learning and greater automaticity than an internal focus (i.e., on one's own body movements). The present study examined whether instructions inducing an external versus internal attentional focus would differentially affect the learning of a balance task in 32 older adults (24 females and 8 males, mean age: 69.4 years), divided equally, by number and gender, into two groups. The task required participants to stand on a balance platform (stabilometer) tilting to the left and right, and to try to keep the platform as close to horizontal as possible during each 30-s trial. The external focus group was instructed to concentrate on keeping markers on the platform horizontal, while the internal focus group was instructed to concentrate on keeping their feet horizontal. The dependent variable was time in balance (i.e., platform movements within ± 5°). Participants performed 10 practice trials on day 1, with focus reminders given before each trial. Learning was assessed by a retention test, consisting of five trials without instructions, performed 1 day later. The external focus group outperformed the internal focus group in retention [F(4, 120)=3.46, p=.01]. The results demonstrate that the learning benefits of an external attentional focus are generalizable to older learners., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Individuals jump higher when they adopt an external focus of attention, relative to an internal focus or no focus of attention (G. Wulf, T. Zachry, C. Granados, & J. S. Dufek, 2007). In the present study, the authors determined the underlying cause of this effect. Participants performed a vertical jump-and-reach task for (a) an external focus condition (i.e., participants focused on the rungs of a Vertec [Perform Better, Cranston, RI] measurement device that they touched) and (b) an internal focus condition (i.e., participants focused on the finger with which they touched the rungs). Participants' jump height, center-of-mass displacement, jump impulse, and lower extremity joint moments were greater with an external focus compared with an internal focus. These results suggest that participants jump higher by producing greater forces when they adopt an external focus. This finding adds to evidence that an external focus facilitates the production of effective and efficient movement patterns.

Background: Postural instability while standing, walking, and interacting with objects or the environment places individuals with Parkinson disease (PD) at risk for falls, injuries, and self-imposed restrictions in activity. Recent research with motor skills, including those demanding postural stability, has demonstrated performance and learning advantages when performers are instructed to adopt an external rather than an internal focus of attention. Despite the potential benefits in stability-related risk reduction and enhanced movement effectiveness, attentional focus research in individuals challenged with postural instability is limited., Objective: The present translational research study examined the generalizability of the attentional focus effect to balance in older adults with PD., Design: A within-participant design was used to account for potentially substantial individual variations in balancing capabilities., Methods: Fourteen participants diagnosed with idiopathic PD (Hoehn and Yahr stages II and III) participated in the experiment. They were asked to balance on an unstable surface (inflated rubber disk). In counterbalanced orders, they were instructed to focus on reducing movements of their feet (internal focus) or the disk (external focus), or they were not given attentional focus instructions (control)., Results: The adoption of an external focus resulted in less postural sway relative to both internal focus and control conditions. There was no difference between the internal focus and control conditions., Limitations: Mental functioning was not formally assessed, and comprehensive clinical profiles of participants were not obtained., Conclusions: The results are consistent with previous findings on attentional focus in samples of patients and people without disabilities. Subtle wording distinctions that direct attention to movement effects external to the mover reduce postural instability during standing for individuals with PD relative to an internal focus. The findings have potentially important implications for instructions given by clinicians and the reduction of fall risk.

Performing and learning motor skills has been shown to be enhanced if the performer adopts an external relative to internal focus (or no focus) of attention (Wulf 2007). The present study examined the generalizability of this effect to top-level performers (balance acrobats). Participants performed a balance task (standing on an inflated rubber dish) under each of three attentional focus conditions: (a) external focus (i.e., minimize movements of the disk), (b) internal focus (i.e., minimize movements of the feet), and (c) control conditions (no focus instructions). While there were no differences between conditions in the amount of postural sway, the frequency of movement adjustments was higher in the control condition, relative to both external and internal focus conditions. This suggests that movement automaticity and postural stability were greatest when the balance experts were free to adopt their "normal" focus of attention. The finding implies that there may be a limit to the performance-enhancing effects of external focus instructions for top-level performers. The findings are discussed in terms of action control levels and possible changes in the optimal attentional focus with the performer's level of expertise.

Purpose: Previous studies (e.g., G. Wulf, M. Höss, & W. Prinz, 1998; G. Wulf, B. Lauterbach, & T. Toole, 1999; for a review, see G. Wulf & W. Prinz, 2001) have reported that limb motor performance is enhanced when individuals adopt an external focus (focusing on the effect of the movement) versus an internal focus of attention (focusing on body parts such as the muscles of the hand). This study tested the hypothesis that the effects of attentional focus on limb performance would also occur in the oral-facial system., Method: Two groups of 23 participants were administered both hand and tongue impulse force control tasks in which each group was randomly assigned either an internal or an external focus of attention. Participants were required to exert rapid pressure bursts to achieve a target force level of 20% of their maximal strength., Results: Consistent with limb studies, findings revealed a significant advantage of an external focus (greater accuracy, less variability) for both the hand and tongue control tasks, as opposed to an internal focus of attention., Conclusions: Results are discussed relative to a constrained-action theory of motor control and future application to speech motor learning.

The performance and learning of motor skills has been shown to be enhanced if the performer adopts an external focus of attention (focus on the movement effect) compared to an internal focus (focus on the movements themselves) [G. Wulf, W. Prinz, Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: a review, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 8 (2001) 648-660]. While most previous studies examining attentional focus effects have exclusively used performance outcome (e.g., accuracy) measures, in the present study electromyography (EMG) was used to determine neuromuscular correlates of external versus internal focus differences in movement outcome. Participants performed basketball free throws under both internal focus (wrist motion) and external focus (basket) conditions. EMG activity was recorded for m. flexor carpi radialis, m. biceps brachii, m. triceps triceps brachii, and m. deltoid of each participant's shooting arm. The results showed that free throw accuracy was greater when participants adopted an external compared to an internal focus. In addition, EMG activity of the biceps and triceps muscles was lower with an external relative to an internal focus. This suggests that an external focus of attention enhances movement economy, and presumably reduces "noise" in the motor system that hampers fine movement control and makes the outcome of the movement less reliable.

In previous studies of attentional focus effects, investigators have measured performance outcome. Here, however, the authors used electromyography (EMG) to determine whether difference between external and internal foci would also be manifested at the neuromuscular level. In 2 experiments, participants (N=11, Experiment 1; N=12, Experiment 2) performed biceps curls while focusing on the movements of the curl bar (external focus) or on their arms (internal focus). In Experiment 1, movements were performed faster under external than under internal focus conditions. Also, integrated EMG (iEMG) activity was reduced when performers adopted an external focus. In Experiment 2, movement time was controlled through the use of a metronome, and iEMG activity was again reduced under external focus conditions. Those findings are in line with the constrained action hypothesis (G. Wulf, N. McNevin, & C. H. Shea, 2001), according to which an external focus promotes the use of more automatic control processes.

The authors examined the influence that attentional focus on either a postural or a suprapostural task had on the performance of each task. Participants (N = 32) stood on an inflated rubber disk and held a pole horizontally. All participants performed under 4 attentional focus conditions: external (disk) or internal (feet) focus on the postural task, and external (pole) or internal (hands) focus on the suprapostural task. Compared with internal focuses, external focuses on either task resulted in similar and reduced postural sway. Response frequency on each task increased when participants focused on the respective task. Finally, an external focus on either task produced higher frequencies of responding on the suprapostural task. The authors conclude that suprapostural task goals have a stronger influence on postural control than vice versa, reflecting the propensity of the motor system to optimize control processes on the basis of the desired movement effect.

We examined whether the attentional focus induced by a suprapostural task has an influence on the learning of a dynamic balance task. Participants balanced on a stabilometer and were required to hold a tube horizontal with both hands. In Experiment 1, the tube contained a table tennis ball, whereas it was empty in Experiment 2. Participants were instructed to focus on either their hands (internal focus) or the tube (external focus). We measured balance performance as a function of attentional focus on the suprapostural task. Participants practised for 2 days, and on Day 3 they performed a retention test (with tube) and a transfer test (without tube). In both experiments, the external focus groups demonstrated more effective retention and transfer than the internal focus groups (and than the control group in transfer in Experiment 2). In addition, in Experiment 1 the external group was superior in keeping the tube horizontal. This suggests that the performer's attentional focus regarding the suprapostural task affects performance and learning not only of the suprapostural task itself, but also of the postural task.

Previous studies (e.g., Wulf, Höss, & Prinz, 1998) have shown that motor learning can be enhanced by directing performers' attention to the effects of their movements ("external focus"), rather than to the body movements producing the effect ("internal focus"). The purpose of the present study was to test the hypothesis that increasing the distance between the body and the action effects might further enhance the learning advantages associated with an external focus of attention. The distance of the external effect was manipulated by instructing three groups of participants learning to balance on a stabilometer to focus on markers attached to the platform located at different distances from their feet. Specifically, two groups were to focus on distant markers on the outside ("far-outside") or inside ("far-inside") of the platform, respectively, whereas another group was instructed to focus on markers close to their feet ("near"). In a retention test administered after two days of practice, all three external-focus groups showed generally more effective balance learning than an internal-focus control group. In addition, the far-outside and far-inside groups demonstrated similar performances, and both were more effective than the near group. Furthermore, the far-outside and far-inside groups showed higher-frequency movement adjustments than the near group. These results suggest that focusing on more distant effects results in enhanced learning by promoting the utilization of more natural control mechanisms. The findings are in line with a "constrained action" hypothesis that accounts for the relatively poorer learning associated with an attentional focus directed towards effects in close proximity to the body, or towards the body itself.

We examined whether the attentional focus adopted on a supra-postural task has an influence on postural control. Similar to Riley, Stoffregen, Grocki, and Turvey (Human Movement Science 18 (1999) 795), participants were instructed to stand still while lightly touching a loosely hanging sheet with their fingertips. However, instructions varied slightly under two conditions: Participants were either asked to minimize movements of the finger (internal focus) or to minimize movements of the sheet (external focus). In contrast to Riley et al.'s findings, both touch conditions resulted in increased postural sway, compared to a baseline condition (no touch). However, in line with previous findings (e.g., Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 54A (2001) 1143), frequency of responding (fast Fourier transformation) was greater under the external focus condition, compared to both internal focus and baseline conditions. The findings indicate improved static balance responses under external focus conditions and compromised static balance response under internal focus conditions.

Studies investigating the influence of the learner's focus of attention, induced by instructions or feedback, on motor skill learning are reviewed. In general, directing performers' attention to the effects of their movements (external focus of attention) appears to be more beneficial than directing their attention to their own movements (internal focus of attention). Preliminary evidence is presented indicating that an internal attentional focus constrains the motor system by interfering with natural control processes, whereas an external focus seems to allow automatic control processes to regulate the movements. Support for the view that actions are controlled by their anticipated effects comes from research demonstrating functional variability in motor control, as well as the benefits of purposeful activity in occupational therapy. We explain these results in terms of the ideomotor principle of human actions (James, 1890) and its more modern derivatives (Hommel, 1996; Prinz, 1990, 1997).

This study examined individuad differences in the preference for and effectiveness of the type of attentional focus for motor learning. In two experiments, participants practicing a balance task (stabilometer) were asked to find out whether focusing on their feet (internal focus) or on two markets in front of their feet (external focus) was more effective. In Experiment 1, participants switched their attentional focus from trial to trial on Day 1 and used their preferred attentional focus on Day 2. In Experiment 2, participants were free to switch their attentional focus any time during 2 days of practice. Retention tests were performed on Day 3. Most participants chose an external focus. Also, they were more effective in retention than participants who preferred an 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.

Experiment 1 examined whether it is more advantageous to direct learners' attention to the external effects of their movements relative to other external cues. Two groups of participants hit tennis balls at a target, with one group focusing on the ball coming toward them (antecedent) and the other group focusing on the ball leaving the racket (effect). The effect group demonstrated more effective learning. Experiment 2 examined whether it is more beneficial if the movement effect is related to the movement technique, relative to other movement effects (e.g., outcome). Two groups of participants hit golf balls at a target. The attention of these groups was directed to the club or the ball trajectory, respectively. The club group showed more effective learning than the target group, suggesting that focusing on technique-related effects is more effective.

In this article, the authors review recent studies on 3 factors that have been shown to affect the learning of motor skills-the performer's attentional focus, self-control, and practice in dyads-and discuss their implications for rehabilitation. Research has shown that directing learners' attention to the effects of their movements can be more beneficial for learning than directing their attention to the details of their own actions. Furthermore, giving learners some control over the training regimen has been found to enhance learning, unlike prescriptive training protocols that dictate when feedback will be delivered, how often, and the order that tasks will be practiced. Finally, not only can practice in dyads (or larger groups) reduce the costs of training, but it can also result in more effective learning than individual practice sessions. The incorporation of these factors into rehabilitation practice can potentially enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of rehabilitation.

This study examined whether the learning advantages of an external focus of attention relative to an internal focus, as demonstrated by Wulf, Höss, and Prinz (1998), would also be found for a sport skill under field-like conditions. Participants (9 women, 13 men; age range: 21-29 years) without experience in golf were required to practice pitch shots. The practice phase consisted of 80 practice trials. One group was instructed to focus on the arm swing (internal focus), whereas another group was instructed to focus on the club swing (external focus). One day after practice, a retention test of 30 trials without instructions was performed. The external-focus condition was more effective for performance during both practice and retention.

The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of a reduced feedback frequency on the learning of generalized motor programs and movement parameterization. Subjects practiced three movement patterns with the same relative timing and the same relative amplitude, but with varied movement time (Experiment 1) or varied movement amplitude (Experiment 2). KR was given either on 100% or 63% of the trials, with learning being assessed by retention and transfer tests. In both experiments, reduced KR frequency enhanced GMP learning but generally degraded parameter learning. These data provide converging evidence for the dissociation of the program and parameterization processes postulated in GMP theory.

The contribution reports on the efficiencies of two different concentration training programmes tested on 40 normally intelligent boys with severely reduced concentration. Twenty of the boys received rhythmic music therapy and the other 20 received a special teaching programme based on psychological principles. Psychostimulants were also administered to 10 boys in each group. The success of treatment was assessed by comparison with an untreated group of pupils with reduced concentration. The boys who received additional psychostimulants achieved the greatest gain in learning as a result of concentration training. The special teaching programme is generally superior to rhythmic musical training.