External focus and autonomy support: Two important factors in motor learning have additive benefits
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
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?
One reason for the effectiveness of self-controlled conditions may be that they enhance learners' self-efficacy.
“Thus, one reason for the effectiveness of self-controlled conditions may be that they have the potential to enhance learners' self-efficacy (Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Cardozo, 2014;Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Drews, 2015).”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Drews, 2015
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