ReviewFrontiers in psychology2024
Focus of attention in musical learning and music performance: a systematic review and discussion of focus instructions and outcome measures.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The topic of attentional focus (focus of attention, FOA) in musical learning and performance has recently received increasing interest, as the growing number of empirical studies inspired by the established FOA paradigm in sports by Wulf and colleagues in 1998. The current systematical review aims at collecting, abstracting, and categorizing relevant data to show which kinds of FOA instructions were applied in experimental designs and what kinds of dependent variables were used to measure the effects of FOA instruction on musical performance. The three main inclusion criteria in the selection process were experimental design, detailed descriptions of FOA instructions, and outcome measures (OMs). A systematic search was conducted with a complex search term in four scientific databases in March 2023. For presenting and synthesizing results, we used data collection and an inductive-deductive data categorization. Fifteen studies with a total sample size of 401 participants were included out of 387 records initially identified. We collected 53 different FOA instruction citations from the 15 studies and classified them into 9 FOA subcategories, of which the most applied were
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.