Trial reportPeerJ2024
Do the effects last? A comparison between internal and external focus of attention instructions on golf putting accuracy over multiple days.
Trial report in PeerJ, 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.
- The Acute Effects of Internal, External, and Golf-Specific Attentional Focus Cues on Isometric Trunk Strength in Youth Golfers.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of attentional focus is a well-explored topic in exercise sciences. Studies generally indicate that external focus (EF) enhances motor performance and learning compared with internal focus (IF). However, most studies only included one or two experimental days which limits participants' exposure to the focus conditions. This raises the question of whether the superiority of EF varies over time. Methods: Accordingly, in this pre-registered within-subject study, we examined the effects of focus instructions on golf-putting performance over four days, with 48-72 h between them. On each day, participants performed 15 putts under three instructional conditions: (1) EF, (2) IF, and (3) control, in a randomized and counterbalanced order. Results: We observed trivial differences in performance between conditions but considerable improvements from day 1 to day 4. When using an exploratory analysis, we found that participants performed better under EF and control conditions compared with the IF condition on day 1, but not on subsequent days. Conclusions: Since IF instructions are more commonly used in practice, we speculate that the two other focus conditions were experienced as more novel, potentially accounting for their superiority on Day 1. Nevertheless, our results question the significance of employing EF to enhance performance.
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.