Cited by 92Sport Psychology and PerformanceSports and Physical Education ResearchMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports

External focus and autonomy support: Two important factors in motor learning have additive benefits

Wulf, Gabriele, Chiviacowsky, Suzete, Drews, Ricardo·2015·Human Movement Science

Abstract

We examined whether the combination of two factors that have consistently been found to enhance motor learning - an external focus (EF) of attention and autonomy support (AS) - would produce additive benefits. Participants practiced throwing with their non-dominant arm. In a 2×2 design, they were or were not asked to focus externally (i.e., on the target), and were or were not given a choice (autonomy support). The latter involved choosing 2 5-trials blocks during practice on which they used their dominant arm. All four groups - EF/AS, EF, AS, and C (control) - completed a practice phase consisting of 60 trials. The distance to the target (bull's eye) was 7.5m. One day later, participants performed retention (same target distance) and transfer tests (8.5m). Both external focus instructions and autonomy support enhanced retention and transfer performance. Importantly, the combination of these factors resulted in additive learning advantages. The EF/AS group showed the greatest throwing accuracy, and the EF and AS groups outperformed the C group. In addition, self-efficacy measured after practice and before retention and transfer was increased by both factors. Thus, promoting an external focus of attention and supporting learners' need for autonomy seem to independently influence learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.humov.2014.11.015

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 53 · Cited by 92

Authors
Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Drews, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
  • Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BR)
Corresponding author
Wulf, Gabriele
Venue
Human Movement Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
40
Pages
176-184
ISSN
0167-9457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053916820
Cited by
92
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8
FWCI
23.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Movement Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Keywords
external attention, autonomy support, motor learning, throwing, non-dominant arm, transfer of learning, retention, self-efficacy, additive effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Functional Laterality, Learning, Male, Motor Skills, Psychomotor Performance, Regression Analysis, Retention, Psychology, Self Efficacy, Personal Autonomy, 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