Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39006013›Full record

Trial reportPeerJ2024

Do the effects last? A comparison between internal and external focus of attention instructions on golf putting accuracy over multiple days.

Miri Nevo, Israel Halperin, Gal Ziv

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  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

3 authors.

Miri Nevo *Department of Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Israel Halperin *Department of Health Promotion, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Gal ZivLevinsky-Wingate Academic College, Netanya, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Athletic PerformanceAttentionGolfAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultAttentional focusGolf puttingLearning strategiesMotor performance

Identifiers

PMID39006013
PMCPMC11246618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.