Effects of Attentional Focus and Dual-tasking on Conventional Deadlift Performance in Experienced Lifters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous attentional focus literature suggests that adopting an external focus (EF) results in greater force production through a variety of mechanisms. Objective: The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of attentional focus and dual-tasking when performing heavily loaded barbell movements that are specific to strength-based sports. Method: Fifteen resistance-trained males (age = 23.3 ± 3.4 years) reported to the laboratory for three visits. The first visit consisted of a five-repetition maximum (5RM) test on the conventional deadlift. During the subsequent sessions, the participants performed a total of twelve single conventional deadlift repetitions while adopting an internal focus (IF), an external focus (EF), or while performing the cognitive task (COG). The IF and EF consisted of focusing on activating the quadriceps and maintaining a straight bar path, respectively. The COG consisted of counting the total occurrence of two single-digits in a sequence of three-digit numbers, separately. Three-dimensional motion capture and force platforms were used to collect kinematic and kinetic data. Results: No significant differences were found between the IF, the EF and the COG for lift duration, peak barbell velocity, peak vertical ground reaction force, area of 95% confidence ellipse, peak hip moments and peak hip powers. Adopting an EF significantly reduced variability of the barbell trajectory and centre of pressure (COP) in the anterior-posterior direction. Mean velocity of COP was also significantly lower for the EF. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that adopting an EF may lead to greater postural stability when performing heavily loaded barbell movements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".