Investigating attentional focus cues in motor skill feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that adopting an external attentional focus (i.e. focusing on the movement outcome on an apparatus or implement) enhances motor learning and performance by increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of movements, when compared to adopting an internal attentional focus (i.e. focusing on produced body movements) (Wulf, 2007; Wulf, 2013). Given such empirical findings, the recommendations are such that instructors/coaches should guide learners via an external focus; however, previous work has failed to determine which type of attentional focus coaches predominantly rely on. The purpose of this study was to examine the information content of verbal feedback provided during practices to motor skill learners, with respect to attentional focus. Participants included one wrestling coach and one soccer coach. Both coaches wore an audio-recording device during two 30-minute practice sessions. Sessions were transcribed, and then coded by labeling pertinent verbal feedback as an internal or external cue. Results revealed that the wrestling coach delivered more internal (81%) than external cues (19%), whereas the soccer coach provided more external (53%) than internal cues (47%). Interestingly, the soccer coach used 76% external cues during one session; however, only 22% external cues throughout the other. This difference may be due to the nature of the soccer practices. More external cues were used in a goalkeeper training session, while more internal cues were provided during a general team practice. This exploratory research will lead to a greater understanding of how coaches use verbal feedback cues, and may guide evidence-based practice recommendations to improve coaching.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".