Effects of attention focus instructions on amateur piano performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detriments to performance under pressure are common in many performance settings, from public speaking to skilled sports or music performances. In the last few decades, sports scientists have suggested that the quality and accuracy of movements can depend on what the performer attends to while executing the action, with an external focus of attention directed at the effects of the movement on the environment resulting in better performance than an internal focus, where attention is directed at the performer’s own body movements. Here we investigated the effects of attention focus instruction on the accuracy of piano performance. Amateur pianists were asked to practice a set piano piece for 7 days and then perform it to the experimenter under different performance instructions (no instruction, internal focus, external focus). An external focus of attention resulted in more accurate performance compared to an internal focus instruction, as evaluated by the difference in the number of note pitch errors and note corrections between the two conditions. Importantly, the advantage of an external over internal focus did not depend on pianistic expertise in our sample. Our research supports the idea that an external attention focus can improve music performance and should be considered in music teaching practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".