SynthesisPeerJ2024
The effectiveness of different attentional foci on the acquisition of sport-specific motor skills in healthy adults: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The acquisition of motor skills is a key element in many sports. A motor learning principle, which is frequently used to support skill acquisition is the application of different attentional foci. The effectiveness of different attentional foci on performance and the learning of motor skills has been investigated in various sports using randomised controlled trials. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of different attentional foci (such as external (EFA) and internal attentional foci (IFA), but also holistic and switching foci) on the performance and learning of a sport-specific motor task in healthy individuals. Methods: This study was a systematic review with network meta-analysis. We followed the Prisma reporting guideline and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews. Cinahl, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central were searched for eligible studies. Network meta-analyses were performed for the post-acquisition, retention and transfer test endpoints. Results: Twelve studies were included in the review. At post-acquisition an EFA was the most effective intervention compared to the control intervention (SMD: 0.9855; 95% CI [0.4-1.57]; Discussion: For all three endpoints, we analysed a greater effectiveness of an EFA and holistic focus compared to an IFA. Several promising different attentional focus interventions were identified. The largest effects were analysed for a holistic focus. However, only one study used this intervention and therefore there remains uncertainty about the effectiveness. With regard to the inconsistency observed, the analysis at post-acquisition should be interpreted with caution. Modified versions of the EFA were the imagined and the dynamic EFA. Both were only explored in single studies and should therefore be investigated in further follow-up studies that directly compare them.
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.