ArticlePsychological research2024
Resolving the Centipede's Dilemma: external focus distance and expertise in applied, continuous skills.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research has reliably demonstrated that an external focus of attention during skill production enhances performance, retention, and transfer relative to an internal focus on movement mechanics. The optimisation of external focus points, across a range of contexts and performers, is important for effective skill production. Two studies were conducted evaluating the impact of external focus distance in an applied, continuous sports skill (kayak sprinting) with participants of two different expertise levels. In Study 1, using a within-participants design, recreational kayakers (n = 20) were timed sprinting 75 m in a surf ski under proximal external focus, distal external focus, and control conditions. The distal focus (on the finish) (29.75 s) was significantly faster than both other trials (ps < 0.001). The control condition (30.95 s) was significantly faster than the proximal focus (on the boat) (32.37 s) (p = 0.003). The effect size was large (η
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.