Cited by 237Sport Psychology and PerformanceMotor Control and AdaptationSports and Physical Education Research

External attentional focus enhances movement automatization: A comprehensive test of the constrained action hypothesis

Kal, E.C., van der Kamp, J., Houdijk, H.·2013·Human Movement Science

Abstract

An external focus of attention has been shown to result in superior motor performance compared to an internal focus of attention. This study investigated whether this is due to enhanced levels of movement automatization, as predicted by the constrained action hypothesis (McNevin, Shea, & Wulf, 2003). Thirty healthy participants performed a cyclic one-leg extension-flexion task with both the dominant and non-dominant leg. Focus of attention was manipulated via instructions. The degree of automatization of movement was assessed by measuring dual task costs as well as movement execution parameters (i.e., EMG activity, movement fluency, and movement regularity). Results revealed that an external focus of attention led to significantly better motor performance (i.e., shorter movement duration) than an internal focus. Although dual task costs of the motor task did not differ as a function of attentional focus, cognitive dual task costs were significantly higher when attention was directed internally. An external focus of attention resulted in more fluent and more regular movement execution than an internal focus, whereas no differences were found concerning muscular activity. These results indicate that an external focus of attention results in more automatized movements than an internal focus and, therefore, provide support for the constrained action hypothesis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.humov.2013.04.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 237

Authors
Kal, E. C., van der Kamp, J., & Houdijk, H.
Affiliations
Heliomare (NL)
Corresponding author
Kal, E.C.
Venue
Human Movement Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-08
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
527-539
ISSN
0167-9457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981123455
Cited by
237
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 5
FWCI
24.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Movement Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
Keywords
constrained action hypothesis, dual-task cost, motor performance, movement fluency, movement regularity, muscle electrical activity, limb dominance
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Automatism, Electromyography, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Functional Laterality, Male, Motor Skills, Movement, Psychomotor Performance, Muscle, Skeletal, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review