ArticleScientific reports2026
Differential effects of attentional focus on drop jump performance with implications for primary level coaches.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To test how different foci of attention (FOA) acutely shape neuromechanical outputs in 45-cm drop jumps as instruction-based cues in settings without routine biomechanical monitoring. Twenty male athletes performed DJs under internal focus (IF), proximal external focus (PEF), and distal external focus (DEF). A no-cue Control (C) trial was completed for familiarization and as a descriptive reference for effect-size benchmarking. Ground reaction force data were used to derive jump height (JH), contact time (CT), reactive strength index (RSI), vertical stiffness (Kvert), and peak vertical ground reaction force (PvGRF). Variables meeting normality and homoscedasticity assumptions were analyzed using one-way repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests, whereas assumption violations were addressed using non-parametric repeated-measures procedures. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated relative to C. JH and PvGRF differed significantly across FOA conditions (both p < .001), with PEF and DEF higher than IF (JH: p = .036 and p < .001; PvGRF: p = .004 and p < .001). CT also differed across conditions (p = .001), with PEF and DEF longer than IF (p = .035 and p = .002). RSI showed no significant differences among IF, PEF, and DEF (p = .819), whereas Kvert differed significantly (p < .001), with IF higher than PEF (p = .022) and DEF (p < .001). Relative to the descriptive control reference, effect sizes indicated improvements across outcomes, including RSI (IF d = 0.892; PEF d = 0.759; DEF d = 0.813). FOA was associated with distinct acute drop-jump profiles across IF, PEF, and DEF. DEF and PEF tended to align with a height/force-oriented signature (higher JH and PvGRF), whereas IF aligned with a faster-contact, stiffer rebound signature (shorter CT and higher Kvert). RSI did not differ significantly among IF, PEF, and DEF, although effect-size benchmarking relative to the descriptive control reference suggested improvements across FOA conditions. Overall, these findings support targeted cueing as a practical means to steer DJ execution toward intended performance characteristics when instrumented monitoring is unavailable.
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.