External attentional focus enhances movement automatization: A comprehensive test of the constrained action hypothesis
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 attentional demands of a task are reduced when performers adopt an external rather than an internal focus.
“For example, the attentional demands of the task have been shown to be reduced when performers adopt an external rather than internal focus (Kal, van der Kamp, and Houdijk, 2013;Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001).”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Kal, van der Kamp, and Houdijk, 2013
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.
- ORCID
- 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