Gabriele Wulf

The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus

The present experiment was designed to test the predictions of the constrained-action hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that when performers utilize an internal focus of attention (focus on their movements) they may actually constrain or interfere with automatic control processes that would normally regulate the movement, whereas an external focus of attention (focus on the movement effect) allows the motor system to more naturally self-organize. To test this hypothesis, a dynamic balance task (stabilometer) was used with participants instructed to adopt either an internal or external focus of attention. Consistent with earlier experiments, the external focus group produced generally smaller balance errors than did the internal focus group and responded at a higher frequency indicating higher confluence between voluntary and reflexive mechanisms. In addition, probe reaction times (RTs) were taken as a measure of the attention demands required under the two attentional focus conditions. Consistent with the hypothesis, the external focus participants demonstrated lower probe RTs than did the internal focus participants, indicating a higher degree of automaticity and less conscious interference in the control processes associated with the balance task.

Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: A review

Studies investigating the influence of the learner’s focus of attention, induced by instructions or feedback, on motor skill learning are reviewed. In general, directing performers’ attention to the effects of their movements (external focus of attention) appears to be more beneficial than directing their attention to their own movements (internal focus of attention). Preliminary evidence is presented indicating that an internal attentional focus constrains the motor system by interfering with natural control processes, whereas an external focus seems to allow automatic control processes to regulate the movements. Support for the view that actions are controlled by their anticipated effects comes from research demonstrating functional variability in motor control, as well as the benefits of purposeful activity in occupational therapy. We explain these results in terms of the ideomotor principle of human actions (James, 1890) and its more modern derivatives (Hommel, 1996; Prinz, 1990, 1997).

Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning

We review research related to the learning of complex motor skills with respect to principles developed on the basis of simple skill learning. Although some factors seem to have opposite effects on the learning of simple and of complex skills, other factors appear to be relevant mainly for the learning of more complex skills. We interpret these apparently contradictory findings as suggesting that situations with low processing demands benefit from practice conditions that increase the load and challenge the performer, whereas practice conditions that result in extremely high load should benefit from conditions that reduce the load to more manageable levels. The findings reviewed here call into question the generalizability of results from studies using simple laboratory tasks to the learning of complex motor skills. They also demonstrate the need to use more complex skills in motor-learning research in order to gain further insights into the learning process.

Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors

Objectives  Findings from the contemporary psychological and movement science literature that appear to have implications for medical training are reviewed. Specifically, the review focuses on four factors that have been shown to enhance the learning of motor skills: observational practice; the learner’s focus of attention; feedback, and self‐controlled practice.

The learning advantages of an external focus of attention in golf.

This study examined whether the learning advantages of an external focus of attention relative to an internal focus, as demonstrated by Wulf, Höss, and Prinz (1998), would also be found for a sport skill under field-like conditions. Participants (9 women, 13 men; age range: 21-29 years) without experience in golf were required to practice pitch shots. The practice phase consisted of 80 practice trials. One group was instructed to focus on the arm swing (internal focus), whereas another group was instructed to focus on the club swing (external focus). One day after practice, a retention test of 30 trials without instructions was performed. The external-focus condition was more effective for performance during both practice and retention.

Enhancing the Learning of Sport Skills Through External-Focus Feedback

Abstract The authors examined how the effectiveness of feedback for the learning of complex motor skills is affected by the focus of attention it induces. The feedback referred specifically either to body movements (internal focus) or to movement effects (external focus). In Experiment 1, groups of novices and advanced volleyball players (N = 48) practiced “tennis” serves under internal-focus or external-focus feedback conditions in a 2 (expertise) × 2 (feedback type) design. Type of feedback did not differentially affect movement quality, but external-focus feedback resulted in greater accuracy of the serves than internal-focus feedback during both practice and retention, independent of the level of expertise. In Experiment 2, the effects of relative feedback frequency as a function of attentional focus were examined. A 2 (feedback frequency: 100% vs. 33%) × 2 (feedback type) design was used. Experienced soccer players (N = 52) were required to shoot lofted passes at a target. External-focus feedback resulted in greater accuracy than internal-focus feedback did. In addition, reduced feedback frequency was beneficial under internal-focus feedback conditions, whereas 100% and 33% feedback were equally effective under external-focus conditions. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of effect-related, as opposed to movement-related, feedback and also suggest that there is a need to revise current views regarding the role of feedback for motor learning.

Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years

Over the past 15 years, research on focus of attention has consistently demonstrated that an external focus (i.e., on the movement effect) enhances motor performance and learning relative to an internal focus (i.e., on body movements). This article provides a comprehensive review of the extant literature. Findings show that the performance and learning advantages through instructions or feedback inducing an external focus extend across different types of tasks, skill levels, and age groups. Benefits are seen in movement effectiveness (e.g., accuracy, consistency, balance) as well as efficiency (e.g., muscular activity, force production, cardiovascular responses). Methodological issues that have arisen in the literature are discussed. Finally, our current understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the attentional focus effect is outlined, and directions for future research are suggested.

An External Focus of Attention Enhances Golf Shot Accuracy in Beginners and Experts

Numerous studies have shown that one factor influencing motor skill learning is the learner’s focus of attention induced by instructions or feedback. Specifically, instructions that induce an external focus of attention, whereby attention is directed to the movement effect on the environment (e.g., implement), can enhance learning. Such instructions have been shown to be more effective than those that induce an internal focus by directing attention to the movements themselves (see Wulf, 2001). For example, Wulf, Lauterbach, and Toole (1999) had participants without golf experience practice pitch shots. Whereas one group of participants was instructed to focus on the pendulum-like motion of the golf club (external focus), another group was instructed to focus on their arm movements (internal focus). The results showed that the external focus group was considerably more accurate in their shots than the internal focus group. Other studies have shown advantages of adopting an external focus for learning a ski simulator task (Wulf, Höß, & Prinz, 1998, Experiment 1), basketball shooting (Al-Abood, Bennett, Hernandez, Ashford, & Davids, 2002; Zachry, Wulf, Mercer, & Bezodis, 2005), volleyball serves and soccer passes (Wulf, McConnel, Gärtner, & Schwarz, 2002), as well as various balance tasks (e.g., Totsika & Wulf, 2003; Wulf et al., 1998, Experiment 2; Wulf & McNevin, 2003). Benefits of an external focus have also been found for daily life activities in persons who had a cerebrovascular accident (Fasoli, Trombly, Tickle-Degnen, & Verfaellie, 2002) and balance in individuals with Parkinson’s disease (Landers, Wulf, Wallmann, & Guadagnoli, 2005). The benefits of adopting an external focus of attention have been explained with the constrained action hypothesis (e.g., McNevin, Shea, & Wulf, 2003; Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001). According to this view, individuals who direct their attention to their movements (internal focus) while performing a motor skill control their actions in a relatively conscious manner. This, in turn, tends to constrain the motor system and disrupt automatic control processes. In contrast, focusing on the movement effect, or adopting an external focus, has been shown to promote use of automatic processes. For example, Wulf et al. (2001) found reduced probe reaction times (RTs) for participants adopting an external focus while practicing a balance task (stabilometer), compared to those adopting an internal focus. Faster probe RTs are generally assumed to indicate reduced attentional demands, or a greater degree of automaticity. Furthermore, the frequency of movement adjustments was higher under external relative to internal focus conditions, again indicating a more automatic, reflex-type mode of control (see also McNevin et al., 2003). While most studies examining attentional focus effects on motor performance and learning compared internal and external focus conditions, only a few included control conditions without attentional focus instructions (e.g., Landers et al., 2005; Wulf et al., 1998, Experiment 1; Wulf & McNevin, 2003; Wulf, Weigelt, Poulter, & McNevin, 2003). In those studies, internal focus and control conditions resulted in similar performances, whereas an external focus produced superior performance or learnAn External Focus of Attention Enhances Golf Shot Accuracy in Beginners and Experts

Enhancing motor learning through external-focus instructions and feedback

Abstract The study examined the generalizability of the learning advantages produced by instructions that induce an external relative to an internal focus of attention (e.g., Wulf, G., Hos, M., & Prinz, W. (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects of internal versus external focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior , 30 , 169–179 .) to the feedback provided to the learner. Four groups of participants practiced to maintain their balance on a stabilometer. Two of these groups were instructed to either focus on their feet (internal focus) or on markers attached to the stabilometer platform (external focus), while two other groups received concurrent feedback about their deviations from the horizontal on a computer screen and were informed that the feedback represented either their feet (feedback/internal focus) or the markers (feedback/external focus). Both external focus of attention and feedback enhanced learning, as measured by a delayed retention test without feedback. Thus, the learning benefits of an external attentional focus seem to generalize to the feedback given to the learner. In addition, feedback generally enhanced performance and learning, suggesting that one function of feedback might be to promote an external focus of attention.

Continuous concurrent feedback degrades skill learning: Implications for training and simulation

In two experiments we investigated the role of continuous concurrent visual feedback in the learning of discrete movement tasks. During practice the learners actions either were or were not displayed on-line during the action; in both conditions the participant received kinematic feedback about errors afterward. Learning was evaluated in retention tests on the following day. We separated (a) errors in the fundamental spatial-temporal pattern controlled by the generalized motor program from (b) errors in scaling controlled by parameterization processes. During practice concurrent feedback improved parameterization but tended to decrease program stability. Based on retention tests, earlier practice with continuous feedback generally interfered with the learning of an accurate motor program and reduced the stability of time parameterization. Continuous feedback during acquisition degrades the learning of not only closed-loop processes in slower movements (as has been found in earlier studies) but also motor programs and their parameterization in more rapid tasks. Implications for feedback in training and simulation are discussed.