Attention Focusing in Sport Analysis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Abstract

There are several types of attentional concentration during the performance of physical actions. Whether the subject is focusing his external (e.g., focusing on the ball movement) or internal (focusing on the movement of the hands) attention determines the outcome of his task. There are also several subtypes of external and internal attention that will be mentioned throughout this paper. This experiment intends to prove the efficiency of either one of the attention concentration methods. For this purpose, an experiment involving fifteen test subjects (6 males and 9 females) was conducted, and its resulting data analyzed according to statistical analysis methods: Student’s t-distribution, ANOVA, F-test, as well as the chi-square test of significance. It appeared that most the majority of the tested individuals favoured the external attentional focusing over the internal one.

Introduction

Attention can be directed towards sources of stimulation which are either external or internal. It is possible to focus ones attention on a specific external or internal cue, like a single thought or an object, or deploy the attention broadly, scanning the environment in order to consider a broad concept. The above attentional dimensions concerning direction (internal/external) and breadth (narrow/wide) have been discussed within a few attentional theories (Bacon, 1974; Wachtel, 1967). A few decades later, these concepts were incorporated into a sport attentional processes model (Nideffer, 1993). Nideffer classifies attention according to direction and breadth into four basic classes: broad-external, narrow-external, broad-internal, and narrow-internal. Broad-external requires scanning a wide portion of the external environment. For example, a football quarterback “reads” the defence as he drops back to pass. A narrow external focus is typified by a batter in baseball who focuses closely on the thrown ball as it leaves the pitcher’s hand. A golfer who is developing a “game plan” for a difficult hole by drawing upon his or her knowledge of the course and past experiences would be engaging in a broad-internal attentional focus. On the other hand, a narrow-internal focus is exemplified by a basketball player who is forming a specific image of his or her shot dropping through the net (Smith, 1996). A key to successful performance, according to Nideffer, is the ability to match one’s attentional focus to the momentary attentional demands of the task situation. These demands can change quickly. For example, once a quarterback has “read” the defence and spotted an open receiver, he must focus narrowly on the moving receiver as he throws the ball, ignoring the sight and sounds of onrushing defenders who are about to tackle him. In this sense, attention may be regarded as a state phenomenon, and athletes must be able to shift attentional focus quickly in order to comply with task demands. A factor that appears to have an important influence on the effectiveness of feedback is what aspect of the task the performer’s attention is directed towards. With regard to instructions given to learners, a number of studies in the past few years have demonstrated that the focus of attention induced by the instructions has a considerable effect on learning (Wulf et al., 2001). These studies have demonstrated that if the performer’s attention is directed to his or her body movements (internal focus); learning is less effective than when attention is directed to the movement effect on the environment (external focus). It appears that when participants are asked to focus on their movements, they tend to actively intervene in the motor control processes. Yet, by attempting to actively control their movements, performers seem to inadvertently disrupt relatively automatic processes that normally control the movement. Focusing on the movement effect, on the other hand, has been argued to promote the utilization of more automatic control processes (Wulf et al., 2001; Wulf and Prinz, 2001). Wulf et al. found higher response frequencies for participants performing a balance task (stabilometer) under external relative to internal focus conditions. The former group of participants made more frequent and smaller corrections in maintaining their balance than the latter group, suggesting that their performance was based on more automatic (e.g. reflex-like) control processes. Second, faster probe reaction times were found for participants performing the balance task under external compared to internal conditions, indicating a greater amount of spare attentional capacity or a higher degree of automaticity (Wulf et al., 2001).

Methods

Fifteen participants (six males and nine females) were randomly assigned into two groups. Their age ranged from 24 to 48 years old. Their mean age was 29.55 years. Eight individuals were assigned for the external focus and seven for the internal focus group.

The equipment used during this experiment consisted of tennis balls, attention focus thermometers, and anxiety thermometers in order to measure focus attention and anxiety at the end of the experiment.

The test subjects underwent a three-step exercise that tested their fundamental juggling abilities. The pretest consisted of dependant measures – catches and duration. Then the subjects were randomly assigned to two groups that used two distinct methods of attentional focusing during the process of juggling. The first group used internal focus (focusing attention on the hands), whereas the second group used external focus (focusing attention on the flight of the ball). Both groups were provided three practice sessions, each fifteen minutes long. The actual test phase model was constructed according to A-B-A-C design and consisted of low-pressure retention trials (A), dual-task transfer where the subjects were required to juggle and to count “beats” together (B), low-pressure retention trials again (A), and the high-pressure test, where the subjects were getting marked according to the nos. of their juggling (C). Ten trials were provided for each block within the test phase. After the above exercises were completed and test subjects marked on their number of juggling, they were required to complete a verbal protocol in order to describe what each entailed and mention their anxiety level according to the anxiety thermometer.

The number of catches was measured during the pre-test. During the learning phase, the mean amount of catches as well as Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was identified for both groups, and the F-test was used in order to compare the components of total deviation. A Chi-square test was performed for the purpose of evaluating the statistically significant differences that appeared between the two groups in a data set. Confidence intervals relied on Student’s t-distribution were used in order to cope with the uncertainty that resulted from sample standard deviation estimation. The duration of each block of exercises during the test phase was measured in seconds, compared, and analyzed. The tone counting accuracy means percentage was also evaluated for eternal and internal focus groups, and a t-test was used to determine the level of significance between the two results. The significance of the chi-square test was given in the form of a p-value which demonstrated the probability of obtaining a certain result. Heart rates of the participants were measured and compared prior to the exercises, after the low-pressure retention tests, and following high-pressure tests. Anxiety and attention focus thermometers were used for measuring the mean anxiety levels and focus of attention of test subjects in both attentional groups.

Results

The experiment had assessed the internal (focus on arm movement) and external (focus on ball movement) focus of its participants. Fifteen-minute practices have been carried out once a week for three weeks. The participants were required to perform juggling with three tennis balls, and after the practices, were obliged to go through a test phase that included low-pressure retention trials, dual-task transfers (juggling and simultaneously counting beats), low-pressure retention trials over again, and high-pressure test. Afterwards, the participating individuals were required to complete a verbal protocol that would describe their level of anxiety.

During the pre-test, the mean amount of catches was 2.29 for external focus and 1.96 for internal. The results obtained during the learning block of the learning phase demonstrated no significant effects on group: F (1,13) = 1.65, p =.22, no significant interaction: F(1,13) = 1.29, p =.28, however there was a significant effect of the block: F (1,13) = 10.25, p <.05. The results of the last block of the learning phase revealed 8.13 catches for the mean external focus and 4.74 for the mean internal focus.

On the low-pressure retention test, the participants scored a mean of 16.0 catches for external focus and a mean of 7.26 catches for internal focus; however, according to the t-test, there was a high significance between the results of these two groups (t(13) = -1.07, p < 0.05). A high significance was revealed between-group differences (t(13) = -1.24, p <.05) for the duration of the low-pressure retention test where the mean external focus was 7.41 seconds, and mean internal focus – 3.49 seconds. During the high-pressure tests, the numbers of catches were measured. Significant effect of group (F(1,13) = 1.06, p <.05), significant effect of block (F(1.07,13.96) = 1.87, p <.05), as well as significant interaction (F(1.07,13.96) =.97, p <.05) have been revealed. When analyzing the simple main effects during the Catches test phase, no significant simple main effect of the block was found (F(1.45,8.67) = 1.74, p =.23) for the internal focus group, and the analysis of the external focus group has shown a significant simple main effect of the block (F(1.04,7.27) = 3.73, p <.05). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between the low-pressure test 1 & Transfer test (p <.05), as well as between the low-pressure test 2 & high-pressure test (p <.05) during the Catches test phase. The Duration test phase revealed significant effect of group (F(1,13) = 1.06, p <.05), significant effect of block (F(1.12,14.56) = 1.71, p <.05) and significant interaction (F(1.12,14.56) = 1.11, p <.05). The simple main effects of the Duration test phase showed no significant simple main effect of block (F(1.87,11.21) = 1.01, p =.39) for the internal focus group and significant simple main effect of block (F(1.07,7.49) = 1.63, p <.05) for the external focus group. Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between the low-pressure test 1 & Transfer test (p <.05) and the low-pressure test 2 & High-pressure test (p <.05) during the Duration test phase. The Duration test phase results of the high-pressure test were 15.55 sec for mean external focus and 6.33 sec for mean internal focus. Low-pressure test 1 revealed the mean duration to be 7.41 sec for the external focus group and 3.49 sec for the internal focus group. The mean results of the transfer test turned out to be 10.10 sec and 4.21 sec for external and internal focus agreeably. Low-pressure test 2 demonstrated a mean duration of 6.27 sec for the external focus and 4.67 sec for the internal focus. Manipulation checks were performed by evaluating the tone counting accuracy. The mean accuracy for external and internal focus came out to be 90.86% and 93.07% accordingly. No significance was revealed between the group differences (t(10) = 0.35, p = 0.73). Verbal protocols were also done for the purpose of manipulation checks. Independent samples t-test showed no significance between-group differences (t(10) =.35, p =.73). The verbal protocol results for external focus were as follows: M rules = 3.00; M rules = 3.86 accordingly. For the purpose of pressure manipulation checks, heart rate was evaluated in participants during the low pressure and high-pressure tests. For the external and internal focus groups during the low-pressure test, the mean heart rate appeared to be 98.12 and 85.71 beats per minute agreeably. For the high-pressure test, the mean heart rate was 104.25 for the external focus and 96.57 for the internal focus. No significant effect of Group (F(1,13) = 1.79, p =.20), block (F(1,13) = 7.33, p <.05) and no significant interaction (F(1,13) =.57, p =.46) has been discovered. During the test of anxiety, there was no significant effect of Group (F(1,11) =.04, p =.84), block (F(1,11) = 19.89, p <.050) and no significant interaction (F(1,11) =.19, p =.67). The external focus group had scored a mean of 3.43 after the low pressure and 5.83 after the high-pressure test. The internal focus group, in its turn, got a mean score of 3.40 after low and 6.32 after high-pressure tests, according to the anxiety thermometer. Another instrument used for manipulation checking was the attention focus thermometer. Its results were as follows: M=6.34 for the external focus; M=4.79 for the external focus group. Five out of fifteen experiment participants preferred internal focus of attention. Four out of these five internal focus supporters belonged to the internal focus group. Independent samples t-test showed no significant between-group differences (t(13) = -1.22, p =.24).

Discussion

This experimental study intended to prove the most effective way of attentional concentration during repetitive physical sports activities. There are reasons to believe that the same principles of attentional concentration during repetitive activities could be applied to non-repetitive sports activities (team games, etc…). The current experiment has engaged 15 test subjects in a set of activities involving juggling with three tennis balls. Results were obtained, and methods of statistical analysis were employed in order to evaluate the received data. The analysis of the results clearly proved that for the majority of the subjects, external attentional focusing was preferable, and only five individuals were more inclined towards internal attention focusing. An interesting question concerns how coaches can constrain the search of learners for emergent movements and tactical behaviours. An issue of particular relevance to coaching behaviour is: Can performance be enhanced when learners view movement dynamics in an effort to imitate a model’s movement topology or form? Based on Bernstein’s (1967) insights, Whiting and Den Brinker (1982) proposed that learning is constrained by information about the image of the act (focus on movement dynamics or topological form) and the image of achievement (focus on the movement effects to be achieved in the environment). It was also shown that the instructions and feedback as a function of an external focus of attention (emphasis on movement effects on the environment) is beneficial compared to an internal focus (focus on the movement of specific body parts) (Wulf et al., 2001). It has been proposed that an external focus on the image of achievement (i.e. an emphasis on task outcomes) provides better opportunities to constrain learners’ search for emergent task solutions during discovery learning (Wulf et al., 2000). In previous work, Vereijken and Whiting (1990) argued that an external focus allowed discovery learners to focus on an image of achievement alone, facilitating performance and learning of a slalom skiing task. It appears that an external focus of attention may not interfere with the self-organization processes of the movement dynamics as athletes explore the task (Davids et al., 2002). Interestingly, Wulf et al. (2000) have found that an external focus that directed performer’s attention towards the movement effects, rather than to other external sources of information, yielded better learning and performance of a tennis forehand drive. That is, the effects of instructions towards an external focus of attention were not due to distracting performers from an explicit focus on their movement dynamics but were influential in allowing emergent processes to inherently regulate task performance and learning. It seems that visual feedback can be used to direct learners’ search for emergent solutions. Al-Abood et al. (2002) found that an external focus of attention on the effects of a model’s performance leads to better task performance by observers than an internal focus on the same model’s movements. These findings, therefore, can be related to the use of models and videotaped images in the coaching context. In conclusion, the theoretical analysis of skill acquisition in sport as an emergent process under constraint is in its infancy, but it is becoming clear that concepts such as body-scaling of actions, symmetry-breaking in order to seek phase transitions are potentially useful ideas that need to be fully investigated in future research programs. In particular, the role of practice structure and organization and the nature of the equipment used during learning are key factors in understanding the emergence of skilled behaviour. These, and many other issues, are likely to form the basis of a theoretical-practical programme of work on a constraints-led approach to skill acquisition for many years to come.

References

Al-Abood, S. A., Bennett, S. J., Moreno Hernandez, F., Ashford, D. G. and Davids, K. (2002). Effect of verbal instructions and image size on visual search strategies in basketball free throw shooting. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 271-278.

Bacon, S. J. ( 1974). Arousal and the range of cue utilization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 81-87.

Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The control and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon Press.

Davids, K., Savelsbergh, G. J. P., Bennett, S. J. and Van der Kamp, J. (2002). Interceptive actions in sport: information and movement. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.

Nideffer, R. M. (1993). Concentration and attention control training. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (2nd ed., pp. 243-261). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Press.

Smith, R. (1996). Cognitive Interference: Theories, Methods, and Findings. Gregory R. Pierce, Barbara R. Sarason, and Irwin G. Sarason (Eds.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vereijken, B. and Whiting, H. T. A. (1990). In defence of discovery learning. Canadian Journal of Sport Psychology, 15, 99-109.

Wachtel, P. L. (1967). Conceptions of broad or narrow attention. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 417-429.

Whiting, H. T. A. and Den Brinker, B. P. L. M. (1982). Image of the act. In J. P. Das, R. F. Mulcahy and A. E. Wall (Eds), Theory and research in learning disabilities (pp. 223-241). New York: Plenum Press.

Wulf, G., McNevin, N. H., Fuchs, T., Ritter, F. and Toole, T. (2000). Attentional focus in complex motor skill learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 229-239.

Wulf, G., Shea, C. H. and Park, J.-H. (2001). Attention in motor learning: preferences for and advantages of an external focus. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 335-344.

Wulf, G. and Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 648-660.

Click Here To Order Now!