Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36094615›Full record

ArticleJournal of athletic training2023

Optimal Training for Movement Acquisition and Transfer: Does "Externally Focused" Visual Biofeedback Promote Implicit Motor Learning?

Elmar Kal, Toby Ellmers, Jennifer Hogg, Alexis B Slutsky-Ganesh, Scott Bonnette, Staci Thomas, Christopher D Riehm, Gregory D Myer, Jed A Diekfuss

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of athletic training, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Elmar KalCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, United Kingdom.
Toby EllmersCollege of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, United Kingdom.
Jennifer HoggDepartment of Health and Human Performance, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga.
Alexis B Slutsky-GaneshEmory Sports Performance and Research Center (SPARC), Flowery Branch, GA.
Scott BonnetteDivision of Sports Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, OH.
Staci ThomasDivision of Sports Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, OH.
Christopher D RiehmEmory Sports Performance and Research Center (SPARC), Flowery Branch, GA.
Gregory D MyerEmory Sports Performance and Research Center (SPARC), Flowery Branch, GA.
Jed A DiekfussEmory Sports Performance and Research Center (SPARC), Flowery Branch, GA.
Southern Plains Agricultural Research Center · USCincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USBrunel University of London · GBEmory Healthcare · USImperial College London · GBUniversity of Tennessee at Chattanooga · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextVisual biofeedback has been shown to facilitate injury-resistant movement acquisition in adolescent athletes. Visual biofeedback is typically thought to foster implicit learning by stimulating athletes to focus attention externally (on movement outcome). However, biofeedback may also induce explicit learning if the athlete uses the visual information to consciously guide movement execution (via an internal focus).

objectiveTo determine the degree to which athletes reported statements indicating implicit or explicit motor learning after engaging in a visual biofeedback intervention.

designProspective cohort study.

settingThree-dimensional motion-analysis laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER

participantsTwenty-five adolescent female soccer athletes (age = 15.0 ± 1.5 years, height = 165.7 ± 5.9 cm, mass = 59.4 ± 10.6 kg).

interventionsStandard 6-week neuromuscular training intervention (three 90-minute sessions/wk), with added visual biofeedback sessions (2 sessions/wk). For the biofeedback training, participants performed squatting and jumping movements while interacting with a visual rectangular stimulus that mapped key parameters associated with injury risk. After the last biofeedback session in each week, participants answered open-ended questions to probe learning strategies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Responses to the open-ended questions were categorized as externally focused (ie, on movement outcome, suggestive of implicit learning), internally focused (ie, on movement itself, suggestive of explicit learning), mixed focus, or other.

resultsA total of 171 open-ended responses were collected. Most of the responses that could be categorized (39.2%) were externally focused (41.8%), followed by mixed (38.8%) and internally focused (19.4%). The frequency of externally focused statements increased from week 1 (18%) to week 6 (50%).

conclusionsAlthough most statements were externally focused (suggesting implicit learning), the relatively large proportion of internal- and mixed-focus statements suggested that many athletes also engaged in explicit motor learning, especially in early practice sessions. Therefore, biofeedback may affect motor learning through a mixture of implicit and explicit learning.

Indexed as

Biofeedback, PsychologyMovementAdolescentFemaleHumansLearningPostureProspective Studiesanterior cruciate ligamentexplicit learningimplicit learning

Identifiers

PMID36094615
PMCPMC10569250
OpenAlexW4297785705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.