The impact of focus of attention (FOA) on curling rock delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Application of focus of attention theory (FOA) to accuracy-oriented sports has shown goal oriented improvements but has not been investigated in curling. The present study investigated FOA application to curling stone delivery. Specifically, if in-turn and out-turn draws and take-out shots can aid in the performance of highly skilled Canadian curlers (HSCC). Right-handed HSCC (N=11; 4 female, Mage=27.23, SDage=4.56) threw in-turn and out-turn draws and take-out shots with control, external and internal focus instructions. Dependent variables measured include draw end-point accuracy (constant error [CE], absolute constant error [ACE], radial error [RE], and variable error), take-out end-point accuracy (hits or miss; miss inside or miss outside), hog-to-hog time, time-on-line, velocity, and acceleration. Questionnaires explored focus strategies. Performance data was analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA with Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc test for significant results, and planned comparisons for non-significant results. Take-out accuracy was analyzed using Cochranes Q and McNemar’s test. Speed and accuracy correlations were analyzed using Pearson’s correlation and Point-biserial correlation. Thematic analyses were conducted on questionnaires. Draw analysis revealed that control in-turns resulted in significantly lower CE, RE, and ACE scores than internal focus in-turns. Take-outs hit a significantly greater proportion of the time with an external focus out-turn compared to an internal focus. Velocity and acceleration at both hog-lines, and halfway were significantly slower for draws than take-outs. Hog-to-hog time was significantly more for draws than take-outs. The percent of time-on-line was significantly less for draws than take-outs. Draws released at slower speeds significantly correlated with worse CE scores. Take-outs released at faster speeds significantly correlated with successful hits. Focus strategies described by HSCC indicate the importance of shifting attentional foci throughout both delivery approaches and the importance of “touch and sensation” for draws. Empirical evidence that differentiates draws from take-outs are provided. An external focus was most beneficial for improving accuracy of take-outs supporting FOA theory (Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001). An internal focus was detrimental to draw accuracy supporting the constrained action hypothesis (Wulf, Höb, & Prinz, 1998). Future research can examine broader foci for draws and explore what “touch and sensation” mean for HSCC.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".