September 7, 2021 Newsletter
📝 Paper you should read
Title
Category
Experiments 1 & 2 used a randomized design, whereas Experiment 3 used a repeated-measures method.
Context
There is a plethora of research outlining that adopting an external focus of attention (i.e., focusing on the effects of movement) results in better accuracy, consistency and economy when performing tasks relative to an internal focus of attention (i.e., focusing on body movements) (Wulf, 2013).
Several proposed theories may explain why adopting an external focus of attention is "better" than an internal focus:
- The latter overly constrains the movement system and perturbs the automaticity of movement execution (i.e., the Constrained-Action Hypothesis) (Wulf et al., 2001).
- The Ideomotor Principle and Common-Coding Theory (Prinz, 1997; Wulf and Prinz, 2001 [pg. 655-65)6]) suggests that perception and action both refer to distal events, so promoting an external focus of attention ensures that the "format" of perceptual and action information is shared (i.e., there is greater unity between movement planning and the desired response). In contrast, an internal focus of attention would put this information "in different languages," so to speak.
- Optimizing Performance Through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning (OPTIMAL) theory of motor learning (Wulf and Lewthwaite, 2016) suggests that shifting the focus of attention externally can enhance goal-action coupling, improving both performance and learning (somewhat similar to Locke and Latham's (2002) Goal Setting and Task Motivation Theory).
However, Gottwald et al. (2020) provide a more balanced discussion on the topic by highlighting the relatively little emphasis placed on the modifications to action during online execution, and thus limited understanding of the "trade-offs" between planning and control when directing one's focus of attention. This gap is significant as Gottwald et al. argue that the appropriateness of adopting an internal versus external focus of attention is context-dependent (e.g., nuances of the task, familiarization with instructions, availability of physical implements during execution, availability of visual or proprioceptive and kinaesthetic information). Furthermore, since the Specificity of Practice Hypothesis (Coull et al., 2001) states that the source of afferent information most useful for performance execution is typically prioritized for processing, directing attention to the most relevant sources of information for task success may enhance learning (i.e., when proprioceptive information is the most relevant source of information, an internal focus of attention may enhance learning to a greater extent than an external focus of attention).
This paper outlined a series of experiments conducted to assess these gaps in the previous literature. Experiment 1 performed a goal-directed aiming task (a classic task in motor learning and control studies, but perhaps more difficult to extrapolate to multi-joint exercise or sport-skill contexts). Experiment 2 also conducted a goal-directed aiming task but removed visual information to more rigorously assess if an internal focus of attention is beneficial when congruent with sources of task-relevant afferent information. Participants in Experiment 3 performed a leg repositioning task. They evaluated the accuracy in which people could reproduce a knee joint angle during a leg extension when prompted with a different focus of attention.
Correctness
This paper takes a straightforward information-processing approach to motor learning and control with no emphasis on a Constraints-Led Approach to motor learning embedded within an Ecological Dynamics Framework. Although specific to Schema Theory, Newell's and Schmidt's commentary in 2003 provide an encompassing introduction into the incompatible axioms between these two overarching theoretical perspectives. Depending on your perspectives, you may (not) object to the theoretical underpinnings guiding these experiments.
Contributions
The authors found that when proprioceptive information was more relevant for task performance, the benefits of adopting an internal focus of attention were more pronounced. Figure 6 is an excellent summary of their findings in the context of the current literature, which I've adapted into a Venn Diagram below:
Therefore, the authors argue it is not surprising that an overwhelming amount of current data suggests that an external focus of attention is superior since most research tasks are biased towards having a high pertinence to visual information.
It also is essential to consider that not all tasks are neatly categorized as exclusively "high" or "low" in proprioceptive or visual pertinence at all times. Thus a more balanced approach to determining whether coaches should be promoting an external versus an internal focus of attention is warranted moving forward in both research and practice.
🧠 Fun fact of the week
Kangaroos can only hop forward and can't move backwards. Seriously. Due to their long back feet and the mass of their tails, they can't walk (forward or backward) or hop backward. Good thing they can hop up to 30 feet and are extremely agile when moving from side to side!
🎙 Podcast to check out
I enjoyed Lex Fridman's recent talk with Matt Walker on the science of sleep. Lots of great nuggets in this one outlining why we sleep, the benefits of sleep, and as with anything with Lex, some discussions on life itself.
Listening to this podcast got me thinking again about some previous papers I've read on sleep, performance, and learning. For example, LaGoy et al. (2020) recently published a fascinating review on the relationship between sleep and sensorimotor performance using an ecological dynamics framework. I particularly like Walker et al.'s (2002) work titled "Practice with Sleep Makes Perfect." The health benefits of a good night's sleep are seemingly endless, and it would appear that the same applies when attempting to consolidate motor skills learned during practice. In future work, it would be exciting to see whether the content of dreams might also influence motor learning and control, as they seem to do with emotional regulation!
🗣 Quote of the week
In honour of the first newsletter, I want to share an excerpt from a Theodore Rosevelt speech titled "The Man in the Arena":
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Like many others, I might often feel that information is not shared very effectively online. However, I don't think that criticism is fair unless I actually "get in the arena" myself and put my ideas out there. I will likely get stuff wrong. I'll probably come up short with my goals to improve knowledge translation and my analyses in general. I will likely produce content that doesn't hit as hard as I want. However, I will be able to sleep comfortably at night knowing that I won't go through life "neither knowing victory nor defeat" and can honestly say that I worked to improve myself every day.
I hope you also find the same inspiration from this quote to put yourself in the arena every day. Whether writing more, getting in the gym, or just trying to be a better version of yourself, get in the arena.