The role of instruction preference in analogy learning: Brain activity and motor performance

This study examined the role of verbal instruction preference when learning motor skills by analogy. During skill learning, analogies are a useful tool for providing knowledge about how to move. It has been argued that analogy instructions reduce reliance on verbal information processes during motor planning, compared to traditional forms of instruction (i.e., explicit rules about how to move). This may be reflected by reduced verbal activity in the brain, measured by EEG alpha power at the temporal region, as well as reduced verbal-motor cross-communication (EEG T7-Fz coherence) during the preparation phase of a movement. Preference for using verbal or visual instructions is likely to influence the efficacy of analogy instructions. This study investigated whether preference for verbal instructions was related to a) changes in performance and b) changes in verbal-cognitive information processing during performance of an adapted basketball task after instruction by analogy. Basketball novices with a high preference for verbal instructions (n = 15) showed significantly decreased activation of verbal brain regions when they used the analogy (high-alpha power), but their performance remained stable. Novices with a low preference for verbal instructions (n = 13) did not show a significant decrease in activation of verbal regions, and their performance deteriorated significantly after introduction of the analogy instruction. It is likely that both cognitive and performance changes after analogy instruction depend on personal aspects of information processing, such as verbal preference.     

Comparing the effects of conscious monitoring and conscious control on motor performance

We compared the effects of conscious monitoring and control on motor performance. Participants were instructed to adopt an internal or external focus of attention in different blocks of a darts task. For one group, the internal as well as external focus instructions emphasized monitoring. For another group, the instructions emphasized control in the two focus conditions. Furthermore, participants’ propensity for monitoring and control was gauged via two factors of the Movement Specific Reinvestment Scale (MSRS) (Masters, Eves, & Maxwell, 2005). These factors were Movement Self-Consciousness (MS-C) and Conscious Motor Processing (CMP), which measure propensity for conscious monitoring and control, respectively. Performance differences between the internal and external focus blocks were expressed as mean radial error (MRE). Results revealed a 3-way interaction between CMP, instruction type (monitoring versus control) and an order effect. Only in the conscious control-group, but not the conscious monitoring-group was there a 2-way interaction between CMP and order. In the conscious control-group, participants with high CMP scores showed worse performance in whichever focus block (internal or external) was presented last. There were no significant effects in the monitoring-group or of MS-C. These findings indicate that conscious control has a stronger effect on motor performance than conscious monitoring.     

The effects of instructional cues on performance and mechanics during a gross motor movement

Externally focused instructions specific to performance have shown to improve body mechanics (Gokeler et al., 2015; Welling, Benjaminse, Gokeler, & Otten, 2016). However, the effect of using an external focus instruction may have been more profound if the content of the instruction had been relevant to mechanics. Therefore, the present study examined the effects of externally focused instructions specific to performance and externally focused instructions specific to body mechanics on mechanics and performance. Twenty-four adults (n = 12 males; n = 12 females) performed a series of drop jumps following external focus cues that were specific to performance and landing mechanics. Participants completed a drop jump followed by a maximal effort vertical jump. The initial contact, maximal angle, and range of motion at the knee in the sagittal and frontal plane motion were measured for mechanics and the height of the second vertical jump was measured for performance. The results suggest external focus instructions specific to performance are beneficial for performance, but not for improving landing mechanics. This suggests that external focus instructions must be specific to the contents of the instruction.     

Verbal-Motor Attention-Focusing Instructions Influence Kinematics and Performance on a Golf-Putting Task

The authors examined how varying the content of verbal-motor instructions and requesting an internal versus external focus influenced the kinematics and outcome of a golf putting task. On Day 1, 30 novices performed 120 trials with the instruction to focus attention either on performing a pendulum-like movement (internal) or on the desired ball path (external). After 20 retention trials on Day 2, they performed 20 transfer trials with the opposite instruction. Group differences for retention and a group by block interaction showed that external instruction enhanced movement outcome. Kinematic data indicated that specific instruction content influenced outcomes by eliciting changes in movement execution. Switching from the external to the internal focus instruction resulted in a more pendulum-like movement.     

Online attentional-focus manipulations in a soccer-dribbling task: implications for the proceduralization of motor skills

A focus of attention on the step-by-step control of a skill has been shown to be detrimental to experts' performance but to have no significant effect on novices' performance (e.g., S. L. Beilock, T. H. Carr, C. MacMahon, & J. L. Starkes, 2002), contrary to the results of manipulations of the direction of attentional focus (e.g., G. Wulf, M. H?ss, & W. Prinz, 1998). In previous studies, researchers have not separated the focus of attention from the nature of the instruction provided or the skill level of the participants. In the present experiment, 10 skilled and 10 less skilled soccer players dribbled a ball after receiving instructions directing attention to an internal, skill-relevant feature (foot); an internal, skill-irrelevant feature (arm); or a skill-irrelevant task (word-monitoring). Performance was evaluated in relation to a no-attentional-focus control condition. For skilled performers, an internal focus on the arms and feet interfered with performance. For less skilled performers, an internal, yet skill-relevant, focus of attention (foot) did not degrade performance, whereas attention to the arms and word monitoring had a detrimental effect. No significant differences were observed across the three attentional manipulations when the skilled performers used the nondominant foot. The results generally supported the deautomization of skills hypothesis.     

Processing head fakes in basketball: Are there ironic effects of instructions on the head-fake effect in basketball?

Instructions in sports are used to improve athletes’ performance. However, instructions can also impair performance if they direct athletes’ attention to a to-be-avoided behavior which paradoxically provokes exactly that behavior (ironic effect). The present study investigates the impact of different instructions on the head-fake effect in basketball. Specifically, we asked here if deliberate attempts to ignore the deceptive cues gaze direction and head orientation increase the impact of that information and thus, paradoxically increase the head-fake effect. We found that the detrimental impact of spatially incongruent gaze direction and head orientation was essentially independent of whether participants were, or were not, instructed to deliberately ignore the task-irrelevant information. Hence, deceptive actions exert their impact independent of the perceivers’ attempts to ignore deceptive cues. We thus conclude that the deceptive cues gaze direction and head orientation are per se hyper-accessible or over-salient and its processing cannot be controlled with any amount of mental capacity (and even not with the non-ironic instruction). However, as both ignore instructions produce general processing costs (i.e., slower reactions) coaches should solely instruct athletes’ to focus attention on the processing of the pass direction.     

The Link Between Cerebellar Dominance and Skilled Hand Performance in 8–10-Year-Old Right-Handed Children

A focus of attention on the step-by-step control of a skill has been shown to be detrimental to experts' performance but to have no significant effect on novices' performance (e.g., S. L. Beilock, T. H. Carr, C. MacMahon, &; J. L. Starkes, 2002), contrary to the results of manipulations of the direction of attentional focus (e.g., G. Wulf, M. Hös, &; W. Prinz, 1998). In previous studies, researchers have not separated the focus of attention from the nature of the instruction provided or the skill level of the participants. In the present experiment, 10 skilled and 10 less skilled soccer players dribbled a ball after receiving instructions directing attention to an internal, skill-relevant feature (foot); an internal, skill-irrelevant feature (arm); or a skill-irrelevant task (word-monitoring). Performance was evaluated in relation to a no-attentional-focus control condition. For skilled performers, an internal focus on the arms and feet interfered with performance. For less skilled performers, an internal, yet skill-relevant, focus of attention (foot) did not degrade performance, whereas attention to the arms and word monitoring had a detrimental effect. No significant differences were observed across the three attentional manipulations when the skilled performers used the nondominant foot. The results generally supported the deautomization of skills hypothesis.     

Effects of attentional-focus instructions on movement kinematics

BackgroundRecent research has shown that internal (body-related) attention-focus instructions disrupt motor learning and performance, whereas paying attention to the environmental effects of movements (external focus) leads to better performance than an internal focus [see, for reviews, Wulf, G. (2007). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 10 years of research. E-Journal Bewegung und Training, 1, 4–14.; Wulf, G., &; Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin &; Review, 8, 648–660.]. However, Beilock's studies [Beilock, S. L., Bertenthal, B. I., McCoy, A. M., &; Carr, T. H. (2004). Haste does not always make waste: expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychonomic Bulletin &; Review, 11, 373–379.] suggest that an internal focus is detrimental in experts but not in novices. Because detrimental effects of consciously attending to movements have generally been measured by performance scores such as accuracy scores or reaction times, it remains unclear how internal and external attentional-focus instructions influence movement kinematics when learning a new skill. To fill this gap, the present study investigated attentional-focus effects on a biomechanical level.MethodsA video of an expert juggler demonstrating a two-ball juggling task was presented to juggling novices. Experimental groups were given either body-related (internal group) or ball-related (external group) verbal instructions or no attention-guiding instructions (control group). In the retention phase without attention-guiding instructions, the body-movement and ball-flight aspects of performance focused on in the verbal instruction were subjected to biomechanical analyses.Results and ConclusionsJuggling performance improved equally in all three groups. However, internally vs. externally instructed acquisition phases had differential effects on the kinematics of the upper body as well as ball trajectories when performing the juggling task. Remarkably, ball trajectories in the control group who received no specific attentional cueing were similar to those in the externally instructed group. This suggests that task-relevant information is picked up independently of instructions, and that external instructions provide redundant information. Internal instructions for object-related tasks, however, may confront novice learners with the need to process additional information. As a result, task difficulty might be unnecessarily enhanced in an observational learning setting.     

Effects of an expert-modeled attentional focus cue structure on skilled jump rope performance and learning

Instructions that direct attention externally have been shown to enhance motor performance. However, research on skilled performers and on learning effects has produced some distinct findings. Further, many studies have presented an overly simplistic view of attention and learning, such that all-internal focus protocols are contrasted with all-external focus protocols. Contrary to this approach, skilled performers have reported adopting combined focus strategies, revealing the need to test more realistic instructional protocols. The current study provided an experimental test of focus instructions that were modeled after the strategies of elite jump rope athletes. Four groups of skilled jump rope athletes practiced novel skills under various focus instructions. The internal focus (IF) and external focus (EF) groups were given traditional internal and external focus instructions, respectively. The expert modeled (EM) group was given a set of instructions that were based on experts' reported focus strategies. The expert modeled-autonomous (EM-A) group was allowed to choose how they used each of the expert-modeled instructions. All groups completed a baseline assessment, four practice sessions, and a learning assessment. Results of a chi-square test of independence revealed no relationship between group assignment and performance during baseline or practice. There was a significant relationship between group assignment and performance during the learning assessment (p < .05). Specifically, the IF group performed below expected values while the EM group performed better than expected. Findings support previous research showing learning detriments associated with internal focus instructions and also provide new insight into the advantages of using instructional approaches that are modeled after experts' strategies. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.     

The effect of attentional instructions during modeling on gaze behavior and throwing accuracy in 7 to 10 year-old children

Research has shown the effectiveness of attentional instructions and observation on the performance and learning in children. However, there is little research on the effects of instruction that manipulates attentional focus during observation. The purpose of the study was to investigate performance following instructions that directed an individual to focus internally or externally during the viewing of a model. Eye tracking was also used to investigate the visual search strategy under different instructional groups. 24 children between the ages of 7 and 10 years were randomly divided into an internal (IFM) or external (EFM) modeling group. Children performed a 10-trial pre-test to measure throwing accuracy and quiet eye duration (QED). Following pre-test, children observed a model performing the correct overarm throw 10 times while eye movement was recorded. They then performed a 10-trial post-test. Results revealed that both groups improved accuracy from pre-test to post-test (p < .001) and increased QED from pre- to post-test (p < .001). It was also observed that EFM had greater accuracy and (p = .01) and longer QED (p < .001) than IFM during post-testing. Evidence was also observed for adherence to the attentional focus strategy as EFM and IFM looked more frequently at the specific cue provided (p < .001). Directing visual attention to the movement effects while observing a model significantly benefits motor performance and learning in children. Changing the focus of instruction to an external focus improved both throwing accuracy and increased QED.     

Neuromuscular effects of shifting the focus of attention in a simple force production task

Research on the focus of attention has begun exploring the physiological changes that underlie the difference between internal and external foci of attention. However, previous electromyography studies have used dynamic tasks, making it difficult to interpret electrophysiological data. The authors analyzed how the focus of attention affects a subject's ability to perform an isometric force production task (focus was directed either at the force platform or the muscles responsible for force production). Subjects received practice without attentional focus instructions and then completed blocks of trials with an external and internal attentional focus separately. An external focus led to significantly less error overall and reduced surface electromyography activity with lower median power frequencies in the antagonist muscle, but attentional focus had no effects on the agonist muscle. Thus, an external focus of attention led to more efficient motor unit recruitment patterns (reduced cocontraction) and improved performance. Posttest surveys revealed subjects were aware of their improved performance with an external focus.     

Probability-reward preferences of rhesus monkeys

The relative preferences of rhesus monkeys for reward probability versus amount were investigated with procedures which contrasted general experience with specific instructions, and evaluated the relationship between probability-amount combinations and preference strength. Four stimulus objects, each signifying a different combination of reward frequency and amount (100% with one unit; 50% with two units; 33% with three units; or 25% with four units), were presented in pairs, one pair per daily session, with trial schedules providing the same amount of reward within each set of 12 trials. In Phase A, 4 monkeys (Group 1) were tested on the six choice-pairs with no preliminary training. In Phase B, Group 1 was joined by an additional 4 monkeys (Group 2), and each of the tasks was preceded by a demonstration of the relevant stimuli, one at a time, together with their associated probabilities and amounts. Group 1 animals developed preferences during Phase A for the more frequently rewarded objects, which persisted into Phase B, whereas Group 2 animals showed no preferences. This result indicates that preliminary instructions concerning the reward combinations associated with stimulus objects can prevent the development of a preference for greater probability over greater amount of reward, but cannot extinguish it once it has been formed or reestablished within the context of a particular task.     

Achievement Goals,Feedback, and Task Performance

Prior research indicates that instructions to focus attention on learning versus performance and the nature of feedback provided have distinct implications for subsequent task performance. We first examined how assigned learning and performance goals and feedback valence interact to determine performance change. Individuals with learning goal instructions performed better after negative feedback but worse after positive feedback. In Study 2, we found that implicit theory, an individual difference that is antecedent to general goal orientation, interacted with learning/performance goal instructions to influence performance change after negative feedback. In both studies, goal instructions influenced performance attributions and affective states, but these variables did not mediate the effects of the goal instructions or performance feedback. We discuss the implications of these results for academic and employment settings.     

Attention focusing instructions and coordination bias: Implications for learning a novel bimanual task

Four groups learnt a novel bimanual coordination movement pattern under instructions designed to manipulate focus of attention. It was predicted that instructions directing attention onto the effects of the action would facilitate learning. Three groups received demonstrations of the required 90° relative phase movement. Two of the demonstration groups also received instruction directing attention either towards the feedback (EXTERNAL), or the relationship between their arm movements and the feedback (RELATION). The third group received no attention directing instructions (DEMO). A final group was only provided with goal relevant feedback (NO DEMO). A scanning task enabled coordination bias to be assessed pre-practice. This was conducted to ensure task novelty and assign participants equally across groups based on strength of bias to in- and/or anti-phase. Acquisition rate was slower for the DEMO only group, especially compared to the EXTERNAL group. Additionally, participants biased to in-phase (as compared to anti-phase) during the scanning trial also showed high error early in practice. These differences remained in retention. Irrespective of feedback condition the DEMO group evidenced the most error in retention. However, all groups were affected by the removal of on-line feedback, although the attention-directing instructions provided during practice somewhat decreased the negative effects associated with feedback removal. Overall, the in-phase-biased participants were most affected by withdrawal of feedback. It was concluded that movement demonstrations alone do not facilitate learning of a novel coordination task, unless additional goal-directed instruction is provided. Additionally, individual differences in coordination bias pre-practice can be used to predict learning rate and quality.     

External focus of attention and autonomy support have additive benefits for motor performance in children

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the combined effects of external focus instructions and autonomy support on motor performance of children. In addition, we sought to provide evidence for an increased focus on the task goal under the external focus condition by using an inattentional blindness manipulation.DesignWithin-participant design.MethodThirty-six children (mean age = 8.5 ± 1.3 years) were asked to perform a bowling task with their dominant hand. Each participant performed 8 trials under external focus (path of the ball), internal focus (hand), or control conditions. In each attentional focus condition, they performed half of the trials under a choice (autonomy support) condition, in which they were able to choose among 4 bowling balls, and a no-choice condition (white ball).ResultsThe external focus instruction resulted in greater bowling accuracy (i.e., more pins knocked down) than internal focus and no instructions (control). Furthermore, choice resulted in more effective performance than no choice. Thus, both factors had additive benefits for performance. There was some evidence for an increased task focus in the external condition.ConclusionsThe present results show that, within the same individuals, instructions to adopt an external focus and the provision of a small choice contributed independently to enhance motor performance in children.     

IDENTIFYING INSTRUCTIONAL TASKS THAT OCCASION PROBLEM BEHAVIORS AND ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF STUDENT VERSUS TEACHER CHOICE AMONG THESE TASKS

Levels of problem behavior were assessed when 4 students with severe disabilities received instruction on preferred versus nonpreferred tasks and when tasks of each type were chosen by the teacher rather than by the student. In Phase 1, interview and direct observation assessments were conducted to identify relative preferences for academic tasks. In Phase 2, the effects of these lower preference and higher preference tasks on the rate of problem behavior were evaluated using a multielement design. The results showed that lower preference tasks were associated with higher rates of problem behaviors and that students, when given a choice, consistently selected the tasks that had been identified through interview and direct observation as higher preference. In Phase 3, we assessed whether allowing the students to choose between pairs of lower preference tasks or between pairs of higher preference tasks reduced problem behavior relative to a condition in which the teacher selected the same tasks. For 2 of 4 students, the rates of problem behavior were lower when students (rather than the teacher) selected the lower preference activity. Higher preference tasks for 3 students were associated with relatively low rates of problem behavior regardless of whether the student or the teacher selected the task.     

Recognizing dynamic scenes: influence of processing orientation

From face recognition studies, it is known that instructions are able to change processing orientation of stimuli, leading to an impairment of recognition performance. The present study examined instructional influences on the visual recognition of dynamic scenes. A global processing orientation without any instruction was assumed to lead to highest recognition performance, whereas instructions focusing participants' attention on certain characteristics of the event should lead to a local processing orientation with an impairment of visual recognition performance as a direct consequence. Since the pattern of results provided evidence for this hypothesis, theoretical contributions were discussed.     

Now,Pay Attention! The Effects of Instruction on Children's Attention

We investigated the effects of instructions to “stay on task” on preschoolers' attention and cognitive performance in the face of either incomprehensible or comprehensible distraction. Three- and 4-year-olds completed problem-solving tasks while a distracting event played continuously in the background under conditions of a) no instruction, b) moderate instruction, or c) frequent instruction to “stay on task.” Under conditions where an incomprehensible distractor was present, any amount of instruction reduced looking to the distracting event. Under conditions where a comprehensible distractor was present, however, frequent instruction was the most effective in increasing looking to the task and decreasing looking to the distracting event.     

Specific internal and external attentional focus instructions have differential effects on rowing performance

Directing an individual to focus their attention on internal or external cues can influence performance of skill-based and endurance sports. The present study examined the effects of switching attention across different types of internal and external attentional foci in a rowing task. Novice rowers (19 male, 47 female) focussed attention on one of four different internal cues (or one of four different external cues) at discrete time points while completing a row on an ergometer. Overall, a focus on internal cues resulted in longer distance, higher power output, and higher heart rate than a focus on external cues. However, for the internal condition a focus on arm and leg muscles was associated with higher performance than a focus on breathing. For the external condition, a focus on exerting force on the handle produced higher performance than a focus on the movements of the handle or seat or on the sounds of the ergometer. Global instructions to focus internally or externally influenced performance, but the specific effects within these broad categories were also variable. The advice given to athletes and recreational exercises should consider both the broad attentional focus direction and the specific cues of the task to which attention is directed.     

Evaluation of antecedent stimulus parameters for the treatment of escape-maintained aberrant behavior

We evaluated a methodology for identifying the range of stimulus features of antecedent stimuli associated with aberrant behavior in demand contexts in natural settings. For each participant, an experimental analysis of antecedents (Phase 1) was conducted to confirm the hypothesis that task instructions occasioned increases in aberrant behavior. During Phase 2, specific stimulus features associated with the presentation of task instructions were assessed by evaluating the child's behavior across two distinct settings, therapists, and types of tasks in a sequential fashion. Aberrant behavior occurred immediately across settings and therapists, presumably because the presence of a discriminative stimulus for escape-maintained behavior (the delivery of a task instruction) occasioned aberrant behavior. However, aberrant behavior decreased initially across tasks, suggesting that familiarity with the task might be a variable. During Phase 3, an experimental (functional) analysis of consequences was conducted with 2 participants to verify that aberrant behavior was maintained by negative reinforcement. During Phase 4, a treatment package that interspersed play with task instructions was conducted to disrupt the ongoing occurrence of aberrant behavior. Immediate and durable treatment effects occurred for 2 of the 3 participants.