SynthesisPloS one2022
How can instructions and feedback with external focus be shaped to enhance motor learning in children? A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the influence of feedback on motor skill learning and motor performance for children with developmental coordination disorder: a systematic review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Pooled it
- Shifting Attention and Response Time Performance in Adolescents: Effects of External and Internal Focus.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessment of the Reliability of a Laser-Based Visuomotor Feedback Device for Assessing Head Movement Control in Chronic Neck Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Measuring Assistive Technology Outcomes via AI-Based Kinematic Modeling of Individualized Routine Learning in Elite Boccia Athletes with Severe Cerebral Palsy: A Longitudinal Case Series.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis systematic review investigates the effectiveness of instructions and feedback with external focus applied with reduced frequency, self-controlled timing and/or in visual or auditory form, on the performance of functional gross motor tasks in children aged 2 to 18 with typical or atypical development.
methodsFour databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase) were systematically searched (last updated May 31st 2021). Inclusion criteria were: 1. children aged 2 to 18 years old; 2. Instructions/feedback with external focus applied with reduced frequency, self-controlled timing, and/or visual or auditory form as intervention, to learn functional gross motor tasks; 3. Instructions/feedback with external focus applied with continuous frequency, instructor-controlled timing, and/or verbal form as control; 4. performance measure as outcome; 5. (randomized) controlled studies. Article selection and risk of bias assessment (with the Cochrane risk of bias tools) was conducted by two reviewers independently. Due to heterogeneity in study characteristics and incompleteness of the reported data, a best-evidence synthesis was performed.
resultsThirteen studies of low methodological quality were included, investigating effectiveness of reduced frequencies (n = 8), self-controlled timing (n = 5) and visual form (n = 1) on motor performance of inexperienced typically (n = 348) and atypically (n = 195) developing children, for acquisition, retention and/or transfer. For accuracy, conflicting or no evidence was found for most comparisons, at most time points. However, there was moderate evidence that self-controlled feedback was most effective for retention, and limited evidence that visual analogy was most effective for retention and transfer. To improve quality of movement, there was limited evidence that continuous frequency was most effective for retention and transfer.
conclusionMore methodologically sound studies are needed to draw conclusions about the preferred frequency, timing or form. However, we cautiously advise considering self-controlled feedback, visual instructions, and continuous frequency.
trial registrationRegistration: Prospero CRD42021225723. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021225723.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.