The DOI matches its Crossref record; 359 of the 374 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 of the 264 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning
Open accessAbstract
Effective motor performance is important for surviving and thriving, and skilled movement is critical in many activities. Much theorizing over the past few decades has focused on how certain practice conditions affect the processing of task-related information to affect learning. Yet, existing theoretical perspectives do not accommodate significant recent lines of evidence demonstrating motivational and attentional effects on performance and learning. These include research on (a) conditions that enhance expectancies for future performance, (b) variables that influence learners' autonomy, and (c) an external focus of attention on the intended movement effect. We propose the OPTIMAL (Optimizing Performance through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning) theory of motor learning. We suggest that motivational and attentional factors contribute to performance and learning by strengthening the coupling of goals to actions. We provide explanations for the performance and learning advantages of these variables on psychological and neuroscientific grounds. We describe a plausible mechanism for expectancy effects rooted in responses of dopamine to the anticipation of positive experience and temporally associated with skill practice. Learner autonomy acts perhaps largely through an enhanced expectancy pathway. Furthermore, we consider the influence of an external focus for the establishment of efficient functional connections across brain networks that subserve skilled movement. We speculate that enhanced expectancies and an external focus propel performers' cognitive and motor systems in productive "forward" directions and prevent "backsliding" into self- and non-task focused states. Expected success presumably breeds further success and helps consolidate memories. We discuss practical implications and future research directions.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning: practice conditions that enhance expectancies, support learner autonomy, and promote an external focus of attention optimize performance and learning by strengthening goal-action coupling. It reviews behavioral and neuroscientific evidence and proposes dopaminergic and functional-connectivity mechanisms.
Key findings
- Enhanced expectancies improve motor performance and learning: feedback after “good” trials, positive social-comparative feedback, self-modeling, easy success criteria, perceived larger golf holes, and hypnosis-like suggestions all facilitated learning; for example, an easy goal in a visuomotor adaptation task enhanced 24-hour retention even when practice performance did not differ.
- Autonomy support and choice enhance learning: self-controlled feedback, self-controlled use of assistive devices, choice of practice order, and even incidental choices such as golf-ball color improved retention; autonomy-supportive instructional language produced better cricket-bowling learning and higher self-efficacy than controlling language.
- An external focus on the intended movement effect is reliably superior to an internal focus on body movements: it improves balance, accuracy, force production, speed/endurance, and movement form while reducing EMG activity, oxygen consumption, and heart rate, consistent with greater automaticity.
- The proposed mechanism is that motivational and attentional factors strengthen goal-action coupling; enhanced expectancies are linked to dopaminergic responses, and external focus/autonomy may facilitate efficient switching from default-mode to motor networks. The paper lists 12 predictions in Table 1.
Methods
- Theoretical/review paper; no new empirical experiment or primary dataset is reported.
- It synthesizes prior behavioral motor-learning studies and cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific evidence, with learning assessed mainly through retention and transfer tests.
- It proposes the OPTIMAL theory, describes plausible psychological and neural mechanisms, and discusses practical implications and future research directions.
Limitations
- The authors state that future research must close empirical gaps, including eliciting dopaminergic responses with varied rewards/positive experiences and capturing network development and dynamic switching; dopamine measurement is challenging because it cannot currently be assessed via salivary or other less invasive methods than PET paired with dopamine-antagonist medication.
- The authors describe the self-invoking trigger idea as “still somewhat speculative,” and the proposed dopaminergic and network-switching mechanisms are presented as plausible rather than fully tested.
- Evident from the text: this is a narrative theoretical synthesis, not a systematic review or meta-analysis, and it does not provide a unified empirical test of the OPTIMAL theory across the reviewed tasks and populations.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
157 Not checked yet · 71 Own interpretation · 12 No basis given · 2 Own result · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · 1 Sources not found · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Expectations can influence working memory, long-term memory, and attentional capture, biasing them toward expected stimuli (Bollinger, Rubens, Zanto, & Gazzaley, 2010;Jiao, Du, He & Zhang, 2015;Shomstein & Johnson, 2013).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bollinger et al., 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that expectations about an ensuing stimulus category enhanced working and long-term memory for faces. It suggests that predictions may guide attention, but does not establish that expectations bias attentional capture toward expected stimuli; its explicit mention of attentional capture describes a separate study. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites Jiao et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page not provided) show that reward-associated color distractors captured attention and that social comparison changed their attentional priority. This supports the attentional-capture part, but the paper does not establish that expectations bias attention toward expected stimuli, nor does it report effects on working or long-term memory. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Partly supportedcites Shomstein & Johnson, 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that a reward-based strategy redirected object-based attention toward rewarded target locations, supporting the attentional-bias portion of the sentence. It does not establish that expectations about which stimuli will appear cause attentional capture; it studies reward contingencies instead. The paper does not address working or long-term memory, though the other citations may be intended for those parts of the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“Interestingly, interviews have shown that, even without explicit internal focus instructions, learners tend to focus on movement form and body movements (Pascua, Wulf, and Lewthwaite, 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: attentional focus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pascua, Wulf, and Lewthwaite, 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In two experiments, asking performers to reflect on their task-related experience resulted in degraded performance (Experiment 1) or learning (Experiment 2) relative to the control condition (Figure 7).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McKay et al. (2015) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This includes athletes (Guss-West & Wulf, 2016;Porter, Wu, & Partridge, 2010;Stoate et al., 2012).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: attentional focus
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Guss-West & Wulf, 2016
- Not checked yetcites Porter, Wu, & Partridge, 2010
- Not checked yetcites Stoate et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Children between the ages of 9 and 11 years practiced basketball free-throws and were given internal-or external-focus feedback.In response to the question about what they were thinking at the conclusion of the experiment, those in the internal focus group reported more self-evaluative content (36-57%) than did participants in the external focus group (7-21%).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Perreault and French (2015) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the enhanced outcome is achieved with less effort, as indicated by reduced muscular activity, heart rate, oxygen consumption, and so forth.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: attentional focus
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that motivational and attentional factors contribute to performance and learning by strengthening the coupling of goals to actions.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Learner autonomy acts perhaps largely through an enhanced expectancy pathway.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Stemming from earlier models of humans as computer-like processors of information (Broadbent, 1958;Sternberg, 1969), factors influencing motor learning have been viewed almost invariably from a motivationally neutral information-processing perspective.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Need for a new perspective
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Broadbent, 1958 source
- Not checked yetcites Sternberg, 1969
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“importantly, self-efficacy resulting from success experiences during the practice of a motor task is predictive of performance on subsequent tests of motor learning (Pascua, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2015;Stevens, Anderson, O'Dwyer, & Williams, 2012;Wulf, Chiviacowsy, & Cardozo, 2014) or performance (Rosenqvist & Skans, 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Enhanced expectancies
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 31
- It may state two separate claims as one. 70
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Self-referential processing appears to be a significant aspect of the brain's default mode of operation (Brewer, Worhunskya, Gray, Tang, Weber, & Kober, 2011;Buckner, Andrews-Hanna, & Schacter, 2008).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Brewer, Worhunskya, Gray, Tang, Weber, & Kober, 2011 source
The Discussion describes the DMN as having a primary role in self-referential processing. The introductory passage also says the default-mode network supports self-referential processing, matching the citing sentence's hedged claim. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked yetcites Buckner, Andrews-Hanna, & Schacter, 2008 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
In the paper
“Indeed, a recent study by Russell, Porter, and Campbell (2014) showed nicely that an external focus on the primary task (dart throwing) was necessary to enhance performance, whereas an external focus on a simultaneously performed secondary task-which should have directed attention away from the self-was not able to enhance performance (similar to internal foci on either task).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Russell, Porter, and Campbell (2014) source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hardy and colleagues found that skilled Gaelic football players attempting free kicks with their dominant and nondominant feet performed with greater kicking accuracy with a motivational self-talk statement (dominant limb) and equally well with motivational or instructional self-talk using their nondominant foot (Hardy et al., 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hardy et al., 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, after a mindfulness induction participants also reported a greater use of an external focus of attention compared with control group participants.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Also, a temporary association of self and objects that were assigned to participants, for example, engaged the mPFC more than other objects (Kim & Johnson, 2012).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kim & Johnson, 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Doll and colleagues (Doll, Hölzel, Boucard, Wohlschläger, & Sorg, 2015) found evidence that 2 weeks of mindfulness intervention focused on breath training (a component of mindfulness training) in novices of this technique was associated with increased functional connectivity between the default mode network and the salience network”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Doll, Hölzel, Boucard, Wohlschläger, & Sorg, 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Self-efficacy was enhanced in parallel with performance results.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chang et al., 2014
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In general, people who believe that (motor) abilities are relatively fixed (so-called entity theorists), tend to be more concerned with proving their ability, and they perceive errors or negative feedback as a threat to the self, because they reveal a limited capacity or lack of ability.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conceptions of ability
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-efficacy was degraded in the 4-ms group as well.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Perceived task difficulty
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“In addition, self-modeling resulted in greater intrinsic motivation and satisfaction with performance (Clark & Ste-Marie, 2007).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Self-modeling
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Clark & Ste-Marie, 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Stoate, Wulf, and Lewthwaite (2012) found that favorable feedback enhanced running efficiency in experienced runners, in addition to reducing perceptions of effort.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-comparative feedback
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stoate, Wulf, and Lewthwaite (2012) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A study by Hutchinson, Sherman, Martinovic, and Tenenbaum (2008) showed greater tolerance for sustained effort in a continuous force production task, increased self-efficacy, and lower perceived exertion as a function of positive normative feedback compared with both negative feedback and control conditions.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-comparative feedback
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hutchinson, Sherman, Martinovic, and Tenenbaum (2008) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Both self-efficacy and learning (i.e., retention performance without optical illusions) were enhanced in the group that practiced with a perceived larger hole compared with a group that experienced a smaller-looking hole (Figure 2).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Perceived task difficulty
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chauvel, Wulf, and Maquestiaux (2015) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the considerable advances in our understanding of motor skill learning over the past few decades, a new theory that encompasses new findings-some of which are the result of new methodologies-is needed.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Need for a new perspective
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is therefore perhaps not surprising that conditions that enhance learners' performance expectancies (see next subsection,”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Motivation
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Compared with not receiving this information (control group), this simple statement resulted in increased self-efficacy and superior learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Perceived task difficulty
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wulf et al., 2012, Experiment 2 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Experimental settings after all are public places and as such presumably induce worries about one's performance or abilities being observed, measured, and compared with those of others-leading to less-than-optimal learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: enhanced expectancies
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For instance, the prospect of a monetary incentive has been shown to improve movement performance in persons with Parkinson's disease (Kojovic, Mir, Trender-Gerhard, Schneider, Pareés, Edwards et al., 2014;Kühn, Brücke, Hübl, Schneider, Kupsch, Eusebio et al., 2008) and to increase force production in healthy participants (Pessiglione, Schmidt, Draganski, Kalisch, Lau, Dolan et al., 2007).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Extrinsic rewards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kojovic et al., 2014
- Not checked yetcites Kühn et al., 2008
- Not checked yetcites Pessiglione et al., 2007
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In most cases, positive affect and positive cognitions would likely be co-effects of the same positive events or experiences.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Positive affect
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“When confronted with mistakes later, children who had received feedback that induced an entity as opposed to an incremental theory, showed diminished motivation and more negative self-evaluations.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conceptions of ability
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cimpian et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While these preferences may simply imply a preference for states of positive over negative affect without performance implications, they may reflect people's (implicit) knowledge of the beneficial consequences of this type of feedback for motivation, performance, and learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: enhanced expectancies
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The acquirable-skill group showed greater improvement in balance performance across retention trials, as well as greater automaticity in the control of their movements (i.e., frequency of movement adjustments) than did the inherent-ability group.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conceptions of ability
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2009
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ridderinkhof and colleagues (Ridderinkhof, van Wouwe, Band, Wylie, Van der Stigchel, van Hees, Buitenweg et al., 2012) found that positive mood inductions benefited cognitive processing in persons with Parkinson's disease.Participants showed increased positive affect after watching a Charlie Chaplin slapstick film clip and enhanced performance on a subsequent decision-learning task.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Positive affect
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ridderinkhof et al., 2012
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Control group participants without ability-related instructions demonstrated similar performance and learning as the inherent-ability group and therefore were less effective and efficient than participants who viewed the task as a learnable skill.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conceptions of ability
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One would expect heightened positive affect with desired outcomes including performance success, satisfaction of fundamental psychological needs, and extrinsic reward.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Positive affect
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Heightened expectations result from performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1977), but expectations have also been experimentally and prospectively linked to motor performance (Feltz, Chow, & Hepler, 2008;Hutchinson et al., 2008;Moritz et al., 2000;Neiss, 1989;Wulf et al., 2012).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Berridge (2007) contends that dopamine is not associated with the hedonic”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > "Autonomy" section).
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berridge, 2007 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Using a stabilometer balance task, these authors found that instructions inducing an entity theory led to an increase in participants' nervousness before and while balancing (during practice), as well as more thoughts about their performance and ability, and a greater focus on body movements (during retention and transfer).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conceptions of ability
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wulf, Lewthwaite, & Hooyman, 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings suggest that control conditions are not, in fact,”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: enhanced expectancies
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly, all groups demonstrated similar performances immediately after the practice phase.However, 6 hours later, the rewarded group outperformed the other two groups and, in contrast to the punished and control groups, even showed performance gains after 24 hours and 30 days.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Extrinsic rewards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Abe et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, individuals who believe that skills are acquirable are more likely to approach a task as an opportunity to improve, and to see errors as temporary and as being part of learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conceptions of ability
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conceptions of abilities may affect the extent to which people frame and interpret performance fluctuations as successes and failures, which may in turn influence motor performance and learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conceptions of ability
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Action-specific perception may serve as preparation for task performance, potentially sustaining focus on achievable elements and reducing concern about abilities to meet demands, thus freeing up self-regulatory resources for performance.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While the expectation of reward has received particular attention as a trigger for a dopamine response (Schultz, 2013), other related cognitive-affective states are supported as well (Schultz, 2010).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Perceived task demands, therefore, can in effect be altered because of a performer's confidence in his or her capabilities (Chauvel et al.) or in a placebo's effect (Piedimonte et al.).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chauvel et al.
- Not checked yetcites Piedimonte et al.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Self-efficacy expectations influence goals set and generate goal setting (Theodorakis, 1995;Locke & Latham, 2006).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although rewards have objective, physical, and chemical properties, their value is defined by the needs of the individual decision maker and thus intrinsically subjective.…The data suggest that both subjective perception and physical presence of a stimulus are necessary to evoke dopamine responses, whereas physical presence alone is insufficient”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schultz, 2013 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These triggers and states include novelty and other violations of expectations (Costa, Tran, Turchi, & Averbeck, 2014;Duzel, Bunzeck, Guitart-Masip, & Duzel, 2010;Murty & Adcock, 2014), active video game play (Koepp et al., 1998), stress (Lighthall, Gorlik, Schoeke, Frank, & Mather, 2013), and risk (Schultz, 2010).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Higher self-efficacy was associated with greater attention to task error cues (Themanson et al., 2008) and greater response accuracy during task execution with faster reaction time (RT) during more difficult or incongruent task conditions (Themanson & Rosen, 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Themanson et al., 2008
- Not checked yetcites Themanson & Rosen, 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Of course, the obverse may be true: low personal expectations for a positive outcome may activate conflicting responses or act in the manner of a selfinvoking trigger (see section on”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McKay, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2015 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The group led to believe they had a strong but not certain (75%) expectation of levodopa receipt experienced dopamine release in their ventral and dorsal striata consistent with their measured dopamingeric responses to actual levodopa.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lidstone et al., 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, expectancies can influence performance through proactive effects on effort expenditure (Fiorio, Andani, Marotta, Classen, & Tinazzi, 2014;Hutchinson et al., 2008) and on perception (Abrams & Weidler, 2015;Chauvel et al., 2015;Piedimonte, Benedetti & Carlino, 2015;Witt, South, & Sugovic, 2014).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Questionnaire results in that study revealed that participants who were given a choice regarding the use of the pole felt less nervous and were less concerned about their body positions.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Control over practice conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chiviacowsky et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dopaminergic systems subserve brain activity relevant to motor, cognitive, and motivational functioning and include the mesocortical, mesolimbic (often combined into the mesocorticolimbic), and nigrostriatal dopamingeric systems (Nieoullon & Coquerel, 2003;Wise, 2004).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nieoullon & Coquerel, 2003 source
- Not checked yetcites Wise, 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The way in which task instructions are worded-that is, whether the language is autonomy-supportive or controlling-has been shown to influence motor learning (Hooyman, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2014), perhaps through the down-regulatory effect of cortisol on the brain's reward circuitry (Montoya, Bos, Terburg, Rosenberger, & van Honk, 2014).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Instructional language
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Occasional risks to expected rewards (i.e., challenge) can transiently dampen the extant levels of rewardrelated dopamine but amplify the impact of subsequent Fig. 3 Schematic of the OPTIMAL theory positive (but not negative) cues, strengthening the learning effect (Schultz, 2010(Schultz, , 2013)).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Observational learning, that is, watching another performer demonstrate a goal movement, is a commonly used and effective way of learning motor skills (for reviews, see Maslovat, Hayes, Horn, & Hodges, 2010;Ong & Hodges, 2012).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Control over practice conditions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Maslovat et al., 2010 source
- Not checked yetcites Ong & Hodges, 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Allowing individuals to exercise control over the environment may not only satisfy a basic psychological need (Deci & Ryan, 2000;2008;White, 1959) but may be a biological necessity (Leotti & Delgado, 2011;Leotti, Iyengar, Ochsner, 2010).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Autonomy
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The mesolimbic dopaminergic system is associated with the reward or motivation system (a component of the salience network; Menon, 2015, see later section on”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Menon, 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Importantly, the latter system receives projections from the former (Draganski,B.,Kherif, F., Kloppel, S.,Cook, P. A.,Alexander,D.C., Parker et al., 2008;Schmidt, Lebreton, Clery-Melin, Daunizeau, & Pessiglioni, 2012;Yin, Ostlund, Balleine, 2008), which may interact with the motor system, including the primary motor cortex, via other direct and indirect pathways (Hosp, Pekanovic, Rioult-Pedotti, &”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is conceivable that the potentiating effect of success with challenge on the strength of the resultant dopamine response may give rise to a variety of beneficial learning and memory effects often attributed to challenge or task difficulty per se (Lee, Swinnen, & Serrien, 1994).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lee, Swinnen, & Serrien, 1994 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Evidence suggests that an internal focus indeed leads to a constrained motor system, or”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > External focus promotes automaticity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vereijken, van Emmerik, Whiting, & Newell, 1992
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Autonomy was associated with greater self-regulatory responsiveness to task errors than controlling motivation and conditions, and in meditational analysis, to better performance.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Legault & Inzlicht, 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, autonomy support directly affects performance and indirectly contributes to goal-action coupling by enhancing performance expectancies.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Psychological stress and/or subsequent control attempts would be expected to take attentional capacity away from the task and result in degraded learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Potential consequences of autonomy-supportive conditions include facilitation of performance (Karsh & Eitam, 2015;Legault & Inzlicht, 2013) as well as the opportunity to enhance perceptions of competence, self-efficacy, and sense of agency (Chambon & Haggard, 2012).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Even though Reeve and Tseng did not assess performance on the puzzle task, designed to be unsolvable in the provided time, the controlling instructional style increased salivary cortisol, whereas an autonomysupportive style decreased it relative to a neutral style.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Reeve & Tseng, 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, choice of exercise order can increase performers' willingness to complete more repetitions (Wulf, Freitas, & Tandy, 2014), which may provide an additional indirect benefit to learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Incidental Choices
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wulf, Freitas, & Tandy, 2014
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recently, Murayama and colleagues demonstrated the undermining effect of reward on subsequent free choice behavior and neural activation, finding more limited engagement in the task and reduced activation in the anterior striatum, midbrain, and lateral prefrontal cortex following reward (Murayama, Matsumoto, Izuma, & Matsumoto, 2010).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murayama, Matsumoto, Izuma, & Matsumoto, 2010 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Its broad impact on motor learning seems to suggest that autonomy support may exert its influence in various ways.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: autonomy
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Given people's psychological and presumably biological need for autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008;Leotti et al., 2010), controlling environments tend to induce stress (Reeve & Tseng, 2011) and, presumably as a result, self-regulatory attempts at controlling emotional responses.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results lend support to the idea that learning is degraded in situations that do not meet learners' need for autonomy, in part because self-regulatory activity in response to external control attempts interferes with learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, it has been suggested that a more active involvement of the learner in the learning process promotes deeper processing of relevant information (McCombs, 1989;Watkins, 1984;Chen & Singer, 1992); encourages error estimation (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2005); fosters the use of self-regulation strategies (Kirschenbaum, 1984); or that giving the learner control over the practice conditions”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: autonomy
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings highlight the importance of the self”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Efforts to consider how to facilitate goal-action coupling from positive motivational and external attentional approaches might optimize performers' results.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Wilson and colleagues recently identified a potential unintended consequence of mindfulness meditation-increased susceptibility to false memories, possibly suggesting that attention to some task-relevant foci could be impaired (Wilson, Mickes, Stolarz-Fantino, Evrard, & Fantino, 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wilson, Mickes, Stolarz-Fantino, Evrard, & Fantino, 2015
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many aspects of motor skills can be and presumably are learned implicitly, including regularities in environmental stimuli and balance skills, and it has been shown that implicit learning can be more effective than explicit learning (Green & Flowers, 1991;Shea, Wulf, Whitacre, & Park, 2001;Wulf & Schmidt, 1997).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By facilitating automaticity in movement control, an external focus generally results in more effective performance (e.g., movement accuracy, balance, maximum force production) than does a counterpart internal focus.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: attentional focus
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The mPFC seems to be linked to a variety of self-related capacities that are maintained across space and time, reflecting the self (Gallagher, 2000).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gallagher, 2000 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both enhanced expectancies (and related autonomy) and attentional focus direct movers with relative clarity toward their action goals.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The default mode network typically does not overlap with functional groupings involved in goal-directed and motor tasks.
In the paper
“Moreover, mindfulness training has been shown to lead to improved decision making (Hafenbrack, Kinias, & Barsade, 2013).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hafenbrack, Kinias, & Barsade, 2013 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Self-referential processing has been shown to occur in brain structures at the cortical midline, in particular the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) (Amodio & Frith, 2006;Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Satpute, 2005; for a review, see Northoff et al., 2006).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, clearing the mind from distracting or self-related thoughts may be helpful, but an affirmative external focus on relevant movement effects may potentially be even more beneficial.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, shorter reaction times for the external relative to the internal focus group corroborated the view that an external focus speeds the learning process by facilitating automaticity.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > External focus promotes automaticity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Mindfulness, a state of non-judgmental awareness of the present moment (Brown & Ryan, 2003), has been linked to reductions in stress and negative affect (Taren, Gianaros, Greco, Lindsay, Fairgrieve, Brown et al., 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taren, Gianaros, Greco, Lindsay, Fairgrieve, Brown et al., 2015
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Mindfulness training has been related to enhanced balance performance resulting from greater automaticity in movement control (Kee et al., 2012).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kee et al., 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Indeed, the motor system's remarkable coordination capabilities seen with an external focus of attention are presumably a reflection of the effectiveness of implicit processes (Wulf, Höß, & Prinz, 1998).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wulf, Höß, & Prinz, 1998 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We suggest that an external relative to an internal focus plays a dual role by (a) directing attention to the task goal and (b) reducing a focus on the self.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, instructions should be kept to a minimum as they increase the likelihood that learners”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Other lines of attentional focus research
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These in turn will further promote self-efficacy and positive affect that helps solidify good performance, resulting in a virtuous cycle with overall positive consequences for learning and motivation.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Practical implications
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Anticipation of success leads to future success.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An external focus of attention is a critical element in the coupling of goals and actions, whereas an internal focus directs attention to the self, thereby degrading performance (Predictions 4 and 5).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conclusions and predictions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The default mode network typically does not overlap with functional groupings involved in goal-directed and motor tasks.
In the paper
“It has been argued that the strength of the functional connectivity in resting-state networks reflects a history of task-relevant coactivation, with stronger coherence in spontaneous activity at rest for regions that were coactivated or fired together during the task (Corbetta, 2012).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Corbetta, 2012 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Correlated low-level oscillatory resonance of activity patterns in participating regions can be observed at rest when regions have operated in concert.
In the paper
“As a result, throwing accuracy was degraded on block 2, whereas that of a control group remained unchanged.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Practical implications
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McKay, Wulf, Lewthwaite, and Nordin, 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The salience network comprises cortical (anterior insula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex) and subcortical (amygdala, ventral striatum, including nucleus accumbens, and substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area) regions with diverse roles in detecting events salient to the organism, and integrating cognitive, emotional, motivational, motor, and interoceptive signals into response selection (Fl”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We contend that these factors contribute to successful outcomes by strengthening the coupling of performers' goals to their movement actions, presumably operating in complementary ways.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conclusions and predictions
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Importantly, functional connectivity is related to motor skill learning (Albert et al., 2009;Song, Gotts, Dayan, & Cohen, 2015) and to higher levels of motor skill (Di, Zhu, Jin, Wang, Ye, Zhou et al., 2012;Ito, Matsuda, & Shimojo, 2015;Kim, Han, Kim, & Han, 2015;Milton, Solodkin, Hluštík, & Small, 2007;Li, He, Huang, Zhang, Lu, Lai et al., 2015).”
- Also stated in: § Mechanisms for attentional focus effects · plain
“Functional connectivity tracks the learning of motor skills, and more distinct functional connections are associated with higher skill (Kim, Chang, Kim, Seo, Ryu, Lee et al., 2014;Milton et al., 2007).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Albert et al., 2009 source
- Not checked yetcites Song, Gotts, Dayan, & Cohen, 2015
- Not checked yetcites Kim, Chang, Kim, Seo, Ryu, Lee et al., 2014
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Mechanisms for attentional focus effects · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, indirect consequences resulting from poor performance or little performance improvement, and learners' perceptions of effort might lead to further decreases in self-efficacy and positive affect, increased self-focus, etc.—essentially resulting in a vicious cycle and less-than-optimal learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Practical implications
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Clusters of brain regions involved in motor learning can be recognized, both at rest (Albert, Robertson, & Miall, 2009;Biswal, Yetkin, Haughton, & Hyde, 1995;Wu, Srinivasan, Kaur, & Cramer, 2014) and in-task (Hasan et al., 2013).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As its name implies, the default mode network is spontaneously active when other systems are passive, although it does not always deactivate when other so-called task-positive or attentional networks are active (Raichle, 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Raichle, 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ultimately, this scenario may lead to a lack of interest in practicing or learning new skills, and perhaps activity avoidance.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Practical implications
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The default mode network is a key functional network, centering brain activity, and pertaining to cognition, including diverse functions such as long-term planning, mind wandering, and self-referential thought (Buckner, 2012;Buckner, et al., 2008;Gusnard, Akbudak, Shulman, & Raichle, 2001).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus effects
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buckner, 2012
- Not checked yetcites Buckner, et al., 2008 source
- Not checked yetcites Gusnard, Akbudak, Shulman, & Raichle, 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case, enhanced performance expectancies and perceptions of autonomy would likely increase learners' self-efficacy.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Practical implications
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Expectations are among the motivational variables that can exert influence through implicit means.
“Importantly, we presume that expectations are among the motivational variables that can exert influence through implicit means (e.g., stereotype threats, goals), although deliberative, explicit, forms of these variables were originally described (Bandura, 1977;Deci & Ryan, 1985).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Dopamine neurons predominantly signal positive reward and expected success, while a smaller set of dopamine neurons responds to negative signals.
“While dopamine neurons predominantly signal some manner of positive reward and expected success is therefore important, a smaller set of dopamine neurons is responsive to negative signals.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The nigrostriatal dopaminergic system, centered in the dorsal striatum, is associated with working memory and motor system functions such as motor planning and response selection.
“The nigrostriatal dopaminergic system, centered in the dorsal striatum, has been associated with working memory and motor system functions, such as motor planning and response selection.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Learners who control feedback delivery typically ask for feedback when they believe their performance was relatively successful.
“Indeed, learners able to control the delivery of feedback, typically report asking for feedback when they assumed their performance was relatively successful.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A person's attentional focus often has a similar influence on performance during practice and on learning as measured by retention or transfer tests.
“A person's attentional focus often has a similar influence on performance during the practice phase when focus instructions are given, and learning, as measured by retention or transfer tests.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The undermining effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation reflects the controlling aspects of reward on behavior.
“It is assumed to reflect the controlling aspects of reward on behavior.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Correlated low-level oscillatory resonance of activity patterns in participating regions can be observed at rest when regions have operated in concert.
“Correlated low-level oscillatory resonance of activity patterns in participating regions can be observed at rest when regions have operated in concert.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The default mode network typically does not overlap with functional groupings involved in goal-directed and motor tasks.
“The default mode network typically does not overlap with functional groupings involved in goal-directed and motor tasks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Anticipation of success leads to future success.
“Paraphrasing the saying linking current success to future success, the anticipation of success breeds success and the presence of dopamine, which supports the development of skill.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Dopamine supports the development of motor skill.
“Paraphrasing the saying linking current success to future success, the anticipation of success breeds success and the presence of dopamine, which supports the development of skill.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Wulf and Lewthwaite 64 recently suggested supporting a learner's autonomy by providing choices and enhanced expectancies (eg, positive feedback, reduced perceived task difficulty) could optimize learning through increased motivation as autonomy and enhanced expectancies allow learners to feel”
From Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Children With Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2018) · cites this paper as [64]
In the citing paper
“This was consistent with the proposal of Wulf and Lewthwaite 64 : when the instructions to learners prompted them to direct their attention to an external focus (eg, minimize movements of a balance platform) rather than to direct their attention to an internal focus (eg, try not to move your feet), learners in the external attention cue”
From Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Children With Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2018) · cites this paper as [64]
Citations
Cites
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68 · Cited by 54,599
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 · Cited by 34,210
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7 · Cited by 26,772
James, W. (1891) · Personality Culture Society · doi:10.1037/11059-000 · Cited by 25,876
The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497 · Cited by 23,245
Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior
Miller, K. A. J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1988) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2070638 · Cited by 15,406
The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 · Cited by 13,448
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Chen, D. D., Hendrick, J. L., & Lidor, R. (2002). Enhancing self-controlled learning environments: The use of self-regulated feedback information. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 43, 69–86.
- Loosch, E. (1995). Funktionelle Variabilität in Dartwurf (Functional variability in dart throwing). Sportwissenschaft, 25, 417–425.
- Saemi, E., Wulf, G., Varzaneh, A. G., & Zarghami, M. (2011). Feedback after good versus poor trials enhances motor learning in children. Revista Brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte (Brazilian Journal of Physical Education and Sport), 25, 671–679.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–700 of 1,000
Nijmeijer, E. M., Brals, F. D., Kempe, M., Elferink-Gemser, M. T., & Benjaminse, A. (2025) · Journal of Biomechanics · doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112671 · Cited by 4
Informative Auditory Cues Enhance Motor Sequence Learning
Leow, L., Nguyen, A. T., Corti, E. J., & Marinovic, W. (2025) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.70140 · Cited by 4
How aging impacts cortical dynamics and gait during dual-task turning revealed by fNIRS
Dong, Y., Yang, C., Chen, Y., Pan, F., Wang, J., & Zhang, C. (2025) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-025-01687-6 · Cited by 5
Providing choice of feedback affects perceived choice but does not affect performance
Ziv, G., Lidor, R., & Levin, O. (2022) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.13631 · Cited by 4
Schlesinger, S. L., Heuwieser, W., & Fischer‐Tenhagen, C. (2022) · Journal of Veterinary Medical Education · doi:10.3138/jvme-2021-0060 · Cited by 4
Directing attention externally produces consistent vertical jump assessment results
Markwell, L. T., Makaruk, H., Frost-Piedrahita, V., & Porter, J. M. (2023) · International journal of exercise science · doi:10.70252/flqx9365 · Cited by 4
Attentional focus effects on joint covariation in a reaching task
Howard, C. K., Gemmert, A. W. A. V., & Kuznetsov, N. A. (2023) · Human Movement Science · doi:10.1016/j.humov.2023.103089 · Cited by 4
Brillinger, M., Karlinsky, A. D., & Patterson, J. T. (2023) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222895.2023.2283538 · Cited by 4
Simpson, T., Finlay, M. J., Simpson, V., Asadi, A., Ellison, P., Carnegie, E., & Marchant, D. (2024) · Journal of Motor Learning and Development · doi:10.1123/jmld.2023-0040 · Cited by 7
Kragting, M., Pool‐Goudzwaard, A., Pezzica, C., Voogt, L. P., & Coppieters, M. W. (2024) · Musculoskeletal Science and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2024.102940 · Cited by 4
Bridi, D., Valentini, N. C., Deslandes, A. C., & Copetti, F. (2024) · Journal of Intellectual Disability Research · doi:10.1111/jir.13140 · Cited by 6
Flôres, F. S., Drews, R., Marconcin, P., & Cardozo, P. (2024) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2024.2349988 · Cited by 4
Pinto, C., Myra, R. S., Pereira, F. J. P., Haas, A. N., Reppold, C. T., Orgs, G., & Pagnussat, A. S. (2024) · European Journal of Physiotherapy · doi:10.1080/21679169.2024.2344604 · Cited by 4
Sandage, M. J., Morton‐Jones, M. E., Hall-Landers, R. J., & Tucker, J. G. (2024) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2024_jslhr-24-00396 · Cited by 4
Carnero-Díaz, Á., Pecci, J., Camacho-Lazarraga, P., & Lluch, Á. C. (2024) · Psychology of Sport And Exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102766 · Cited by 7
Personality Traits Modulate the Effect of Haptic Guidance During Robotic-Assisted Motor Training
Garzás-Villar, A., Boersma, C., Derumigny, A., et al. (2024) · 2022 9th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference for Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob) · doi:10.1109/biorob60516.2024.10719887 · Cited by 3
Aderinto, N., Olatunji, G. D., Kokori, E., Abraham, I. C., Ogieuhi, I. J., Egbunu, E. O., Moradeyo, A. A., Obasanjo, O. M., Ukoaka, B. M., Babalola, A. E., et al. (2024) · Current Treatment Options in Pediatrics · doi:10.1007/s40746-024-00317-1 · Cited by 4
Khalaji, Z., Salehi, H., Alhosseini, M. N., Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2024) · International Journal of Rehabilitation Research · doi:10.1097/mrr.0000000000000653 · Cited by 6
Self-citationŁuba-Arnista, W., Arnista, P., Niznikowski, Т., Sadowski, J., Mastalerz, А., Ratkowski, W., Niźnikowska, E. A., Różański, P., & Starzak, M. (2025) · BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/s13102-025-01133-2 · Cited by 7
Johannes, F., Pekacka-Egli, A. M., Köhler, S., et al. (2025) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci15040410 · Cited by 4
Extrinsic feedback from a feedback device promotes the learning of range of motion measurements
Akizuki, K., Mitamura, K., Yamamoto, R., et al. (2020) · Journal of Physical Therapy Science · doi:10.1589/jpts.32.114 · Cited by 3
Chung, Y., Lewthwaite, R., Winstein, C. J., Monterosso, J. R., & Fisher, B. E. (2020) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.14723 · Cited by 5
Self-citationBishop, L., Omofuma, I., Stein, J. M., Agrawal, S. K., & Quinn, L. (2020) · Neurology Report · doi:10.1097/npt.0000000000000317 · Cited by 6
Feasibility of the Lee Silverman Voice Treatment-BIG Intervention in Stroke
Proffitt, R. M., Henderson, W. L., Stupps, M., et al. (2020) · OTJR Occupational Therapy Journal of Research · doi:10.1177/1539449220932908 · Cited by 4
Jaquess, K. J., Lu, Y., Ginsberg, A., Kahl, S., Lu, C., Ritland, B. M., Gentili, R. J., & Hatfield, B. D. (2020) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222895.2020.1817841 · Cited by 4
Optimizing Verbal Communication in the Instruction of Weightlifting to Weightlifting Naïve Athletes
Laakso, L. A. (2021) · Strength and conditioning journal · doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000636 · Cited by 6
Sattelmayer, M., Chevalley, O., Kool, J., Wiskerke, E., Denkinger, L. N., Giacomino, K., Opsommer, E., & Hilfiker, R. (2021) · Archives of Physiotherapy · doi:10.1186/s40945-021-00120-3 · Cited by 4
Chrif, F., van Hedel, H. J. A., Vivian, M., Nef, T., & Hunt, K. J. (2022) · Technology and Health Care · doi:10.3233/thc-213629 · Cited by 6
Feedback from basketball coaches: Type, quantity, and real-time outcomes
Zach, S., & Furman, E. (2022) · International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · doi:10.1177/17479541221105609 · Cited by 5
Sanz-Junoy, G., Gavín-Chocano, Ó., Ubago-Jiménez, J. L., & López-Barajas, D. M. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20156525 · Cited by 5
Investigating Students’ Motivation on the Use of Rosetta Stone in Learning English Pronunciation
Yuliani, S., Khulaifiyah, K., & Idayani, A. (2023) · AL-ISHLAH Jurnal Pendidikan · doi:10.35445/alishlah.v15i2.3160 · Cited by 4
Ioannucci, S., Boutin, A., Michelet, T., et al. (2021) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2021.103220 · Cited by 4
Predictors of arm non-use in chronic stroke: a preliminary investigationPreprint
Buxbaum, L. J., Varghese, R., Stoll, H., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/702159 · Cited by 4
Autonomy and focus of attention in medical motor skills learning: a randomized experimentPreprint
Pollok, F., Cook, D. A., Shaikh, N., Pankratz, S. V., Morrey, M. E., & Laack, T. A. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-646654/v1 · Cited by 4
A win-win situation: Does familiarity with a social robot modulate feedback monitoring and learning?Preprint
Abubshait, A., Beatty, P. C. W., McDonald, C., et al. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/6z75t · Cited by 4
Serrien, B., Tassignon, B., Baeyens, J., et al. (2018) · doi:10.31236/osf.io/6jqeg · Cited by 4
Influence of different verbal cue types on countermovement jump performance in youth female athletes
Drury, B., Singh, H., Larkin, H., Behm, D. G., Protheroe, L., & Moran, J. (2024) · International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · doi:10.1177/17479541241236672 · Cited by 4
Laroëre, B. M., Land, W. M., Banátová, K., Mudrák, J., & Abdollahipour, R. (2024) · Kinesiology · doi:10.26582/k.56.1.5 · Cited by 3
“More recent explanations propose that an external focus promotes goal-action coupling, which consequently enhances performance outcomes (Abdollahipour, Palomo Nieto, Psotta, & Wulf, 2017; Abdollahipour, Land, Valtr, Banátová, & Janura, 2023; Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016).”
BackgroundVisuomotor adaptation across the lifespan
Clayton, H. A., Abbas, S., Hart, B. M. ’., & Henriques, D. Y. P. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306276 · Cited by 3
“These results could be explained by the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning, which argues that motivational and attentional factors strengthen goal-action pairings, ultimately leading to improved motor performance [28].”
InfluentialCederström, N., Nilsson, G., Dahan, R., Granér, S., & Ageberg, E. (2024) · BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002064 · Cited by 3
Motor learning theory can benefit seafarers
Sanli, E. A. (2024) · Journal of Navigation · doi:10.1017/s0373463324000328 · Cited by 3
Ruos, D., Em, S., Bamrungsin, P., & Khampirat, B. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-02147-z · Cited by 15
Aboudonya, M. E. S., Ibrahim, H. D. F., & Osman, S. R. (2025) · Resuscitation Plus · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2025.101071 · Cited by 3
Solana–Tramunt, M., & Ródenas, A. B. (2025) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2025.1667536 · Cited by 3
Luo, Y., Cao, Y., Li, S., Shi, Y., & Chen, P. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1593182 · Cited by 3
Neurorehabilitation in the 21st Century: New Science, New Strategies, New Expectations
Wolpaw, J. R., Thompson, A. K., Perez, M. A., Norman, S. L., Oudega, M., & Winstein, C. J. (2026) · Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · doi:10.1177/15459683251412309 · Cited by 5
Basith, A. G., Sardiman, Purwanto, D., et al. (2026) · COMPETITOR Jurnal Pendidikan Kepelatihan Olahraga · doi:10.26858/cpjok.v18i1.497 · Cited by 3
The effects of reward and punishment on the performance of ping-pong ball bouncing
Yin, C., Wang, Y., Li, B., & Gao, T. (2024) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2024.1433649 · Cited by 4
Effects of external verbal cueing on countermovement rebound jump performance
Xu, J., Turner, A. N., Comyns, T. M., et al. (2024) · Sports Biomechanics · doi:10.1080/14763141.2024.2377217 · Cited by 3
Benjaminse, A., Nijmeijer, E. M., Gokeler, A., Broekhaar, D. C., & Cortés, N. (2024) · The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000004912 · Cited by 3
A Critical Appraisal of Using Barbell Velocity Data to Regulate Training
Hirsch, S. M., Chapman, C. J., Singh, H., Baker, D. G., & Frost, D. M. (2025) · The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000005050 · Cited by 3
Suzuki, Y., Sakamoto, D., & Ono, T. (2025) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3706599.3720124 · Cited by 3
Physical therapy evaluation and treatment of functional movement disorders: A case series
Mowry, H., Perez, E., Stillwell, A., & Shearin, S. (2025) · Physiotherapy Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/09593985.2025.2514126 · Cited by 3
Chen, I., Teng, G., Chen, C.-J., Lan, T., & Liu, H. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00944 · Cited by 3
Tavera, S. Y. G., Salcedo, A. L. P., Hernández, C. D. L., & Montoya, J. S. O. (2021) · Revista Innovación y Desarrollo Sostenible · doi:10.47185/27113760.v1n2.35 · Cited by 3
Makki, R., Abdoshahi, M., & Ghorbani, S. (2021) · Biomedical Human Kinetics · doi:10.2478/bhk-2021-0023 · Cited by 3
Effects of ball properties on throwing in young team-handball beginners
Fasold, F., Noël, B., Nicklas, A., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · doi:10.1177/17479541211023658 · Cited by 3
Akizuki, K., Yamamoto, R., Yabuki, J., Yamaguchi, K., & Ohashi, Y. (2021) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222895.2021.2020206 · Cited by 4
Suda, Y., Fukuhara, K., Sato, K., & Higuchi, T. (2022) · Frontiers in Sports and Active Living · doi:10.3389/fspor.2022.844436 · Cited by 3
Development and validation of the Singing Voice Function Self-Efficacy Scale (Singing-VoSES)
Lã, F. M. B., Fiuza, M. B., Ramírez, A. M., & Ardura, D. (2023) · Psychology of Music · doi:10.1177/03057356231152286 · Cited by 5
Ma, L., Marshall, P. J., & Wright, W. G. (2023) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-023-06610-z · Cited by 4
Endoscopic Biofeedback Training for Cough and Swallowing: The What, Why, and How
Curtis, J. A. (2024) · Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups · doi:10.1044/2023_persp-23-00190 · Cited by 3
Ericksen, H. M., Earl-Boehm, J. E., & Lally, E. (2024) · Journal of Athletic Training · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-0154.23 · Cited by 3
Psychological Aspects of Motocross Racing Considering Expected, Perceived, and Actual Performance
Komáromi, L., Tóth, L., Marcos, R. D. L. V., & Szabó, A. (2024) · Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1123/jsep.2023-0150 · Cited by 3
Investigating Self-Stretching Impact on Immediately Improved Cognitive Function
Park, S. Y., Song, J. H., Lee, W. J., Lee, J., Han, H. S., & Oh, S. (2024) · The Journal of Korean Physical Therapy · doi:10.18857/jkpt.2024.36.3.110 · Cited by 3
Hughes, J. D., Ayala, F., Roberts, W., et al. (2024) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.1080/07853890.2024.2408456 · Cited by 3
Simpson, T., Tyler, R., Simpson, V., Ellison, P., Carnegie, E., & Marchant, D. (2024) · Human Movement Science · doi:10.1016/j.humov.2024.103302 · Cited by 4
Wang, X., Zou, W., Zhang, X., Yang, N., Zheng, Y., Meng, R., & Ma, H. (2024) · Tobacco Induced Diseases · doi:10.18332/tid/196676 · Cited by 3
Cooperation and competition enhance implicit sequence learning differently
Si, Y., Wang, B., & Kawczyński, A. (2025) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102090 · Cited by 5
Kakvandi, S. N., Ramezanzade, H., Firouzjah, M. H., Elghoul, Y., & Abdollahipour, R. (2025) · Human Movement Science · doi:10.1016/j.humov.2025.103327 · Cited by 4
Goudsmit, J., Janssen, M., Luijten, S., & Vos, S. B. (2018) · Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association (ISEA) · doi:10.3390/proceedings2060198 · Cited by 3
Mental practice is associated with learning the relative timing dimension of a task
Apolinário‐Souza, T., Ferreira, B. D. P., de Oliveira, J. R. V., Nogueira, N. G. D. H. M., Pinto, J. A. R., & Lage, G. M. (2020) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222895.2020.1852156 · Cited by 3
Doozandeh, P. (2020) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/1463922x.2020.1849442 · Cited by 3
Hamashima, M., Murakawa, Y., Omon, K., Kitamura, T., & Ishikawa, H. (2020) · リハビリテーション医学 : 日本リハビリテーション医学会誌 · doi:10.2490/jjrmc.20007 · Cited by 3
Wilson, J. M., Gheith, R. H., Lowery, R. P., Reber, D. D., Stefan, M. W., Koche, L. S., Rolnik, B. M., Ganz, A. B., & Sharp, M. H. (2021) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2021.113461 · Cited by 4
Mental, physical or combined practice in motor performance and learning: a meta-analytical response
Díaz, J. J., Morera-Castro, M., Chaves-Castro, K., Portuguez-Molina, P., Vargas, G. A., & Salazar, W. (2022) · Pensar en Movimiento Revista de Ciencias del Ejercicio y la Salud · doi:10.15517/pensarmov.v20i2.51150 · Cited by 3
Zheng, L., & Wang, H. (2020) · Annals of Applied Sport Science · doi:10.29252/aassjournal.916 · Cited by 3
Effects of attentional focus on upper extremity motor performance in post stroke patients
Gomes, C. L. A., Cacho, R. D. O., Nobrega, V. T. B., Galvão, F. R. D. O., de Araújo, D. S., Medeiros, A. L. D. S., Silva, E. C. V., Barreto, R. L., & Cacho, Ê. W. A. (2021) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000024656 · Cited by 3
Peters, C. M., & Glazebrook, C. M. (2021) · Journal of Motor Behavior · doi:10.1080/00222895.2021.1892576 · Cited by 3
Development and preliminary validation of the Sport Situation Attentional Questionnaire
Mastagli, M., Hainaut, J.-P., Hoye, A. V., & Bolmont, B. (2021) · International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1612197x.2021.1919741 · Cited by 3
“The ability to be attentive has been widely regarded as a major prerequisite in motor learning (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016), whether in a sport (Moran, 2016) or an educational context where physical activities are taught (Standage et al., 2005).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialWanner, M., Schönherr, G. S., Kiechl, S. J., Knoflach, M., Müller, C. F., & Seebacher, B. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051504 · Cited by 3
García, D. S., & Coronado, J. F. O. (2023) · E-balonmano com Journal Sports Science · doi:10.17398/1885-7019.18.201 · Cited by 3
“Los diferentes estudios concluyeron en la teoría OPTIMAL de aprendizaje motor (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016).”
BackgroundOptimal distance of an external focus of attention in standing long jump performance of athletes
Lotfi, G. (2018) · Physical Education of Students · doi:10.15561/20755279.2018.0304 · Cited by 3
Makaruk, H., Porter, J. M., Sadowski, J., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/560813 · Cited by 3
Understanding Fine Motor Skill Learning in DentistryPreprint
El‐Kishawi, M., Khalaf, K., & Winning, T. A. (2021) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202104.0309.v1 · Cited by 3
The Impact of Spatial Occlusion Training on Complex Motor Skills in Sport
Dunton, A. (2020) · doi:10.34719/8jvp-pt85 · Cited by 3
Yao, W. X., Land, W. M., & Yue, G. H. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1344889 · Cited by 3
ACL Injury Hidden in the Complex Sensorimotor SystemPreprint
Kacprzak, B., & Stańczak, M. (2024) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202408.0614.v1 · Cited by 3
Towards AI-based Precision Rehabilitation via Contextual Model-based Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Ye, D., Luo, H., Winstein, C. J., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.01.13.24319196 · Cited by 3
A novel model for developing thrust joint manipulation skills: a teaching and learning perspective
Adams, K. R., Kolb, W. H., Geiser, M. B., & Dolphin, M. (2024) · Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy · doi:10.1080/10669817.2023.2299184 · Cited by 2
Engage, Enthuse, Empower: A Framework for Promoting Self-Sufficiency in Athletes
Maloney, S. J. (2022) · Strength and conditioning journal · doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000754 · Cited by 2
Lewis, A. F., Bohnenkamp, R., Myers, M., den Ouden, D., Fritz, S. L., & Stewart, J. C. (2024) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2024.107930 · Cited by 4
Does Dyadic Practice Interfere with the Type of Motor Learning Promoted by Analogy Instructions?
Profeta, V. L. D. S., Beleza, F. N. R., & Louredo, C. A. G. (2024) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.1177/00315125241267127 · Cited by 2
Schärli, A., & Guss-West, C. (2024) · Geriatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2024.10.026 · Cited by 2
Eguia, K. F., Ng, S. S. M., & Wong, T. W. L. (2025) · Physiotherapy Research International · doi:10.1002/pri.70035 · Cited by 2
Eguia, K. F., Cheung, S. K., Chung, K. K. H., & Capio, C. M. (2025) · Disabilities · doi:10.3390/disabilities5010032 · Cited by 2
Sevitz, J. S., Rogus‐Pulia, N. M., Malandraki, G. A., & Troche, M. S. (2025) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2025_jslhr-24-00768 · Cited by 3
Song, S.-H. (2025) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.1177/00315125251346882 · Cited by 2
Zhang, Y., Sarmukadam, K., Nejati, V., & Behroozmand, R. (2025) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2025.109202 · Cited by 3
Impact of attentional focus and action verbs on bench press performance
Finlay, M. J., Marchant, D., Langley, C., & Simpson, T. (2025) · Human Movement Science · doi:10.1016/j.humov.2025.103385 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wulf, Gabriele
- ORCID
- Wulf, Gabriele
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2016-01-29
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1382-1414
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W2342925794
- Semantic Scholar
- 8dc9d689d28ad122740d400ad76852edc244f391
- Cited by
- 1,238
- References
- 374
- Citations by year
- 2026: 204 · 2025: 152 · 2024: 165 · 2023: 124 · 2022: 129 · 2021: 146 · 2020: 118 · 2019: 92 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 10
- FWCI
- 12.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- motor learning, intrinsic motivation, attentional focus, external focus, expectancy effects, learner autonomy, dopamine, optimal theory, skill acquisition, memory consolidation, brain networks, practice conditions
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Humans, Learning, Motivation, Motor Activity, Psychomotor Performance
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
