外注意焦点对运动表现和学习的优势:系统回顾和元分析。

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological bulletin Pub Date : 2021-06-01 DOI:10.1037/bul0000335
Lee-Kuen Chua, Judith Jimenez-Diaz, Rebecca Lewthwaite, Taewon Kim, Gabriele Wulf
{"title":"外注意焦点对运动表现和学习的优势:系统回顾和元分析。","authors":"Lee-Kuen Chua,&nbsp;Judith Jimenez-Diaz,&nbsp;Rebecca Lewthwaite,&nbsp;Taewon Kim,&nbsp;Gabriele Wulf","doi":"10.1037/bul0000335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Considerable literature on the role of attentional focus in motor performance and learning has accumulated for over two decades. We report the results of comprehensive meta-analyses that address the impact of an external focus (EF, on intended movement effects) versus internal focus (IF, on movements of body parts) of attention on the performance and learning of motor skills. Values of effect sizes (ES) from 73 studies with 1,824 participants and 40 studies with 1,274 participants were used for examining the effects of EF versus IF on behavioral outcomes of motor performance and learning (separately for retention and transfer phases) respectively. The EF condition was more effective than the IF condition for performance, Hedges' g value = 0.264 (95% CI [0.217, 0.310]), retention learning, Hedges' g value = 0.583 (95% CI [0.425, 0.741]), and transfer learning, Hedges' g value = 0.584 (95% CI [0.325, 0.842]). Multivariable metaregression analyses on behavioral measures further indicated that neither age group, health status, or skill level, nor their two-way interactions, moderated the ES differences between EF and IF in performance, retention, and transfer models (all p > .100). A secondary analysis on 12 studies with 216 participants that examined the effects of EF versus IF on electromyographic outcomes of motor performance also indicated that EF was associated with more efficient neuromuscular processing, Hedges' g value = 0.833 (95% CI [0.453, 1.213]). From nine studies with 272 participants, performance measured by behavioral outcomes was found to be more effective when a more distal, rather than proximal, EF was used, Hedges' g value = 0.224 (95% CI [0.019, 0.429]). Overall, the meta-analytic results are consistent with prior narrative reviews and indicate that an external focus is superior to an internal focus whether considering tests of motor performance or learning, and regardless of age, health condition, and level of skill expertise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"147 6","pages":"618-645"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"39","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Superiority of external attentional focus for motor performance and learning: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.\",\"authors\":\"Lee-Kuen Chua,&nbsp;Judith Jimenez-Diaz,&nbsp;Rebecca Lewthwaite,&nbsp;Taewon Kim,&nbsp;Gabriele Wulf\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/bul0000335\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Considerable literature on the role of attentional focus in motor performance and learning has accumulated for over two decades. We report the results of comprehensive meta-analyses that address the impact of an external focus (EF, on intended movement effects) versus internal focus (IF, on movements of body parts) of attention on the performance and learning of motor skills. Values of effect sizes (ES) from 73 studies with 1,824 participants and 40 studies with 1,274 participants were used for examining the effects of EF versus IF on behavioral outcomes of motor performance and learning (separately for retention and transfer phases) respectively. The EF condition was more effective than the IF condition for performance, Hedges' g value = 0.264 (95% CI [0.217, 0.310]), retention learning, Hedges' g value = 0.583 (95% CI [0.425, 0.741]), and transfer learning, Hedges' g value = 0.584 (95% CI [0.325, 0.842]). Multivariable metaregression analyses on behavioral measures further indicated that neither age group, health status, or skill level, nor their two-way interactions, moderated the ES differences between EF and IF in performance, retention, and transfer models (all p > .100). A secondary analysis on 12 studies with 216 participants that examined the effects of EF versus IF on electromyographic outcomes of motor performance also indicated that EF was associated with more efficient neuromuscular processing, Hedges' g value = 0.833 (95% CI [0.453, 1.213]). From nine studies with 272 participants, performance measured by behavioral outcomes was found to be more effective when a more distal, rather than proximal, EF was used, Hedges' g value = 0.224 (95% CI [0.019, 0.429]). Overall, the meta-analytic results are consistent with prior narrative reviews and indicate that an external focus is superior to an internal focus whether considering tests of motor performance or learning, and regardless of age, health condition, and level of skill expertise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20854,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological bulletin\",\"volume\":\"147 6\",\"pages\":\"618-645\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"39\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000335\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000335","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 39

摘要

关于注意力集中在运动表现和学习中的作用的大量文献已经积累了二十多年。我们报告了综合荟萃分析的结果,该结果解决了外部焦点(EF,对预期运动效果)与内部焦点(IF,对身体部位的运动)对运动技能表现和学习的影响。分别使用73项研究(1824名参与者)和40项研究(1274名参与者)的效应量(ES)值来检验EF和IF对运动表现和学习行为结果的影响(分别用于保留和转移阶段)。EF条件比IF条件对表现更有效,Hedges的g值= 0.264 (95% CI[0.217, 0.310]),保留学习,Hedges的g值= 0.583 (95% CI[0.425, 0.741]),迁移学习,Hedges的g值= 0.584 (95% CI[0.325, 0.842])。行为测量的多变量元回归分析进一步表明,年龄组、健康状况或技能水平及其双向相互作用都不能调节EF和IF在表现、保留和迁移模型中的ES差异(均p > .100)。对216名参与者的12项研究进行了二次分析,检查了EF与IF对运动表现肌电图结果的影响,也表明EF与更有效的神经肌肉加工有关,Hedges' g值= 0.833 (95% CI[0.453, 1.213])。从涉及272名参与者的9项研究中发现,使用远端EF比近端EF更有效,Hedges的g值= 0.224 (95% CI[0.019, 0.429])。总体而言,meta分析结果与先前的叙述性综述一致,并表明无论考虑运动表现或学习测试,无论年龄,健康状况和技能专业水平如何,外部焦点都优于内部焦点。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Superiority of external attentional focus for motor performance and learning: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Considerable literature on the role of attentional focus in motor performance and learning has accumulated for over two decades. We report the results of comprehensive meta-analyses that address the impact of an external focus (EF, on intended movement effects) versus internal focus (IF, on movements of body parts) of attention on the performance and learning of motor skills. Values of effect sizes (ES) from 73 studies with 1,824 participants and 40 studies with 1,274 participants were used for examining the effects of EF versus IF on behavioral outcomes of motor performance and learning (separately for retention and transfer phases) respectively. The EF condition was more effective than the IF condition for performance, Hedges' g value = 0.264 (95% CI [0.217, 0.310]), retention learning, Hedges' g value = 0.583 (95% CI [0.425, 0.741]), and transfer learning, Hedges' g value = 0.584 (95% CI [0.325, 0.842]). Multivariable metaregression analyses on behavioral measures further indicated that neither age group, health status, or skill level, nor their two-way interactions, moderated the ES differences between EF and IF in performance, retention, and transfer models (all p > .100). A secondary analysis on 12 studies with 216 participants that examined the effects of EF versus IF on electromyographic outcomes of motor performance also indicated that EF was associated with more efficient neuromuscular processing, Hedges' g value = 0.833 (95% CI [0.453, 1.213]). From nine studies with 272 participants, performance measured by behavioral outcomes was found to be more effective when a more distal, rather than proximal, EF was used, Hedges' g value = 0.224 (95% CI [0.019, 0.429]). Overall, the meta-analytic results are consistent with prior narrative reviews and indicate that an external focus is superior to an internal focus whether considering tests of motor performance or learning, and regardless of age, health condition, and level of skill expertise. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
期刊最新文献
Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature. Supporting the status quo is weakly associated with subjective well-being: A comparison of the palliative function of ideology across social status groups using a meta-analytic approach. When connecting with LGBTQ+ communities helps and why it does: A meta-analysis of the relationship between connectedness and health-related outcomes. Who am I? A second-order meta-analytic review of correlates of the self in childhood and adolescence. Defining social reward: A systematic review of human and animal studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1