The DOI matches its Crossref record; 359 of the 374 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 264 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
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
159 Not checked yet · 71 Own interpretation · 12 No basis given · 2 Own result · 1 Sources not found
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.
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, a control group that was not provided normative feedback showed performance and learning similar to that of the worse group.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-comparative feedback
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.
In the paper
“In one study (Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2010b), participants who were given normative feedback suggesting that their performance on a balance task was better than average (”
§ 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 Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2010b
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Interestingly, learners who watched the edited videos that showed their best swimming strokes or trampoline skills demonstrated enhanced learning relative to other groups.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Self-modeling
What the sources say
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.
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
“Broadly speaking, variables that enhance expectancies for future performance success-including those that satisfy the psychological need for competence (i.e., experiencing oneself as capable and competent)-have a beneficial effect on motor skill learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-cognitive-affective-motor behavior
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.
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
“The OPTIMAL theory builds on the premise that motor learning cannot be understood without considering the motivational (e.g., social-cognitive and affective) and attentional influences on behavior.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-cognitive-affective-motor behavior
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.
In the paper
“Moreover, performance was mediated by self-efficacy (but see Calin-Jageman & Caldwell, 2014, for a failure to replicate some of the superstition findings).”
§ 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 Calin-Jageman & Caldwell, 2014 source
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.
In the paper
“it has become clear that motivational (e.g., social-cognitive, affective) factors associated with various practice conditions have an important influence on learning as well (Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2010a, 2012).”
§ 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 Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2010a, 2012
boostedcorrelational- 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.
In the paper
“While lack of confidence may detract from movement fluidity or automaticity, circumstances that enhance learners' expectations of future performance success can potentiate even more success, improvement, and learning (Rosenqvist & Skans, 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Enhanced expectancies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rosenqvist & Skans, 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.
In the paper
“Conversely, providing performers with a criterion for good performance that is difficult to reach can impair 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 Palmer, Chiviacowsky, and Wulf (2016) 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.
In the paper
“For example, believing that a putter used to belong to a professional golfer was found to enhance putting accuracy (Lee, Linkenauger, Bakdash, Joy-Gaba, & Proffitt, 2011).”
§ 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 Lee, Linkenauger, Bakdash, Joy-Gaba, & Proffitt, 2011
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In a series of recent studies, providing learners with feedback after”
- Also stated in: § Positive feedback · boosted
“Groups that received feedback on the more accurate trials demonstrated more effective learning on retention tests without feedback.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Positive feedback
What the sources say
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.
- Also stated in: § Positive feedback · boosted
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
“Findings from a number of lines of research provide converging evidence for the effectiveness of practice conditions that enhance learners' performance expectancies.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Enhanced expectancies
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.
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, when memory consolidation had a chance to take place (24-hour groups), the success experienced during practice manifested itself in enhanced learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Perceived task difficulty
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
“Studies have demonstrated that motor learning is enhanced by (false) positive feedback, suggesting more effective performance or greater improvement than average, compared with negative feedback that indicates poorer performance relative to others, or even no socialcomparative feedback (control conditions).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-comparative feedback
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.
In the paper
“As demonstrated by Witt, Linkenauger, and Proffitt (2012), when the golf hole appeared larger because it was surrounded by small circles, participants produced more successful putts than when the hole was surrounded by larger circles and therefore appeared smaller (Ebbinghaus illusion).”
§ 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 Witt, Linkenauger, and Proffitt (2012) 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.
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 these influences on the performance and learning of motor skills are similar across human learners, though perhaps amplified or dampened within individuals.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-cognitive-affective-motor behavior
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: 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
“The view that motor learning is enhanced by practice conditions that make information processing more difficult and effortful has dominated the discourse in the motor learning literature (Guadagnoli & Lee, 2004;Lee, Swinnen, & Serrien, 1994;Schmidt & Bjork, 1992).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Need for a new perspective
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.
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 argue that those needs must be met, or at least not be threatened, in order to optimize motor learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-cognitive-affective-motor behavior
plainconditional- 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
“Positive normative feedback also produced qualitative differences in movement control, with participants exhibiting greater automaticity and efficiency in motor control than participants who received negative or no normative feedback.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-comparative feedback
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
“In contrast, negative feedback (and perhaps control) conditions seem to trigger thoughts about the self and resulting self-regulatory activities that hamper learning of the primary task.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-comparative feedback
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.
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
“Also, learner autonomy (i.e., the need to actively participate in determining one's own behavior) appears to influence optimal learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-cognitive-affective-motor behavior
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.
In the paper
“In one study, enhancing performers' expectancies for generic performance under pressure increased their throwing accuracy relative to the control condition (McKay, Lewthwaite, & Wulf, 2012).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Self-efficacy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McKay, Lewthwaite, & Wulf, 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A group that underwent a hypnosis session, which had as a central theme the suggestion that a focus on the target would enhance accuracy, showed greater throwing accuracy on 10-minute and 1week retention tests than a control group that simply received instructions informing them about the benefits of a focus on the target.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Perceived task difficulty
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
“certain motivational factors, in particular those that underlie intrinsic motivation or which satisfy fundamental psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008;Ryan & Deci, 2000), have been found to affect performance and learning in domains beyond movement (Hagger, Sultan, Hardcastle, & Chatzisarantis, 2015;Taylor, Jungert, Mageau, Schattke, Dedic, Rosenfield et al., 2014).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-cognitive-affective-motor behavior
What the sources say
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The group for whom the larger circle was identified putted more accurately in practice and in 24-hour retention and transfer tests than did the group with the higher standard or more conservative (smaller circle) definition of success.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Perceived task difficulty
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.
In the paper
“Furthermore, an external focus of attention, or a concentration on the intended movement effect, enhances motor performance and learning (Wulf, 2013).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Social-cognitive-affective-motor behavior
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wulf, 2013
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.
In the paper
“Using a visuo-motor adaptation task, Trempe, Sabourin, and Proteau (2012) found that visuomotor adaptation was enhanced when participants were given a relatively easy objective or goal-and thus experienced more success during practice-relative to participants who were given a more difficult goal.”
§ 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 Trempe, Sabourin, and Proteau (2012)
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
“The 24-hour easy-objective group also outperformed two other groups that performed the second session after 5 minutes.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Perceived task difficulty
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.
In the paper
“For example, in a study by Wulf, Lewthwaite, and Hooyman (2013), participants learning a balance task who received negative normative feedback, demonstrated defensive, self-enhancing reactions to the self-related threat that was reflected in increased signature size over the course of practice.”
§ 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 Wulf, Lewthwaite, and Hooyman (2013) 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.
In the paper
“In a series of experiments using both motor (e.g., golf putting) or cognitive tasks (e.g., solving anagrams), Damisch, Stoberock, and Mussweiler (2010) demonstrated that superstition-for instance, believing in”
§ 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 Damisch, Stoberock, and Mussweiler (2010) source
boosteddirect- 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 one study, even a brief (10-minute) hypnotic intervention improved throwing accuracy (Jalene & Wulf, 2014).”
§ 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 Jalene & Wulf, 2014 source
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Human beings appear to have a propensity to prefer positive information about themselves, such as positive feedback about their performance (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2007) or physical fitness, athleticism, health, and physical attractiveness (Ennigkeit & Hänsel, 2014).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: enhanced expectancies
What the sources say
hedged- 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
“violations of patterns of expected results have affective and motivational consequences (Plaks & Stecher, 2007).”
§ 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 Plaks & Stecher, 2007 source
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research directed at the impact of positive affect on cognitive processes has documented increased cognitive flexibility and creativity (cognitive performance) effects (Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999;Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004;Lyuborminsky, King & Diener, 2005).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Positive affect
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ashby, Isen, & Turken, 1999 source
- Not checked yetcites Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004
- Not checked yetcites Lyuborminsky, King & Diener, 2005
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.
In the paper
“Children of all age groups showed less effective learning of a throwing task when the instructions given before the practice phase suggested that performance was a reflection of an inherent ability rather a function of practice.”
§ 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 Drews et al., 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ability conceptions can also influence adults' motivation and motor performance or learning.”
§ 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 Jourden et al., 1991 source
- Not checked yetcites Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2009
plainconditional- 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
“Findings of enhanced self-efficacy, increased task interest or satisfaction with one's performance, reduced concerns about one's performance or abilities, and greater positive affect, support the notion that the observed learning benefits are mediated by motivational factors.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: enhanced expectancies
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
“Conceptions of ability can be influenced, often relatively easily, by task instructions or performance feedback.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conceptions of ability
plainconditional- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Children's conceptions of ability for movement-relevant tasks were affected by even subtle differences in the wording of feedback (Chiviacowsky & Drews, 2014;Cimpian, Arce, Markman, & Dweck, 2007).”
§ 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 Chiviacowsky & Drews, 2014
- 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: 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
“Abe and colleagues (Abe et al., 2011) found that a group receiving monetary rewards for good performance on a tracking task during practice showed more effective learning than a group that was punished for poor performance (by having money deducted) or a control group.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Participants in that group showed greater self-efficacy, more positive affective self-reactions, greater interest in the task, and greater improvement across trials than did participants who were led to believe that the apparatus measured their natural capacity for processing dynamic information.”
§ 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 Jourden et al., 1991 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.
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
“As reviewed above, within the motor learning domain evidence from various lines of research indicates that enhancing performance expectancies facilitates 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: 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
“Positive affect is likely to accompany most experiences that produce enhanced expectancies for valued outcomes.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“The learning of a balance task (stabilometer) was indeed enhanced by instructions depicting performance on the task as an acquirable skill rather than something that reflected an inherent ability for balance.”
§ 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
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
“It is also worth noting that, when control conditions were includedfor example, in studies using social-comparative feedback (Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2010b), providing information about the performance of peers (Wulf et al., 2012), or inducing conceptions of ability (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2009)-learning also was suboptimal.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: enhanced expectancies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2010b
- Not checked yetcites Wulf et al., 2012 source
- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Importantly, rewards appear to exert their effects via expectation rather than receipt.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Extrinsic rewards
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast, people who assume that abilities are changeable or malleable (so-called incremental theorists) tend to focus more on learning and improving their performance on a given task.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conceptions of ability
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.
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
“Anticipation of positive affect may be one relevant form of enhanced expectancies with the potential to influence performance and learning.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether 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
“Individuals who see task performance as a reflection of an inherent ability presumably approach practice situations with a certain degree of apprehension (low expectations) that hinders the learning process.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conceptions of ability
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“That is, it is the anticipation of reward (broadly defined) or reward prediction error (Schultz, 2000(Schultz, , 2013) ) that places this form of enhanced expectancies within our consideration here.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Extrinsic rewards
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.
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
“This also may be the case for performers whose concerns are not alleviated by information about the malleability of skills (control conditions).”
§ 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.
In the paper
“After the negative feedback, participants in the former condition demonstrated degraded kicking accuracy relative to the latter condition.”
§ 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 Chiviacowsky & Drews, 2014
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.
In the paper
“If rewards are experienced as an index of performance effectiveness, intrinsic motivation and personal performance expectancies are likely enhanced (Eisenberger, Pierce, & Cameron, 1999).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Extrinsic rewards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eisenberger, Pierce, & Cameron, 1999 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A common substrate to consciously or subliminally registered conditions that signal success, enhance expectations of extrinsic rewards, support psychologicalbiological fundamental needs including competence, autonomy, and social-relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;Deci & Ryan, 2008;Leotti, Iyengar, & Ochsner, 2010;White, 1959), and create positive affect, or several of the above (Koepp, Gunn, L”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Perceptions of self-efficacy are related to affective self-reactions and related self-regulatory activity (Bandura & Jourden, 1991;Jourden, Bandura, & Banfield, 1991;Themanson, Pontifex, Hillman, & McAuley, 2011).”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Movement-system readying occurs through pre-movement excitation or inhibition of neuromuscular systems relevant to upcoming movement execution.”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the moments when action is planned and executed, higher performance expectancies may also serve as a buffer or protection against responses that would detract from optimal performance, such as nonbeneficial alternate responses, including off-task activity (Jiao et al., 2015;Zahodne, Nowinski, Gershon, & Manly, 2015) or self-referential thinking.”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Within the set of”
§ 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
- Not checked yetcites Wager & Atlas, 2015
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.
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
“The affective feeling or sense of confidence is likely coincident with the self-percept or cognition of confidence.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy effects
hedgedcorrelational- 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: 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
“These, including the corticospinal tract, have been recently attributed to expectations (Arias, Robles-García, Espinosa, Corral-Bergantiños, Mordillo-Mateos, Grieve et al., 2014;Mooshagian, Keisler, Zimmermann, Schweickert, & Wassermann, 2015;van Elswijk, Kleine, Overeem, & Stegeman, 2007).”
§ 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.
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
“The generation of positive affect by the cognition of confidence may trigger affective consequences relevant to performance and learning.”
§ 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: 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
“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
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.
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
“Prospectively, expectancies for personal performance appear to serve a task-readying function.”
§ 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.
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
“High performance expectancies, as described above, appear to prepare the mover for successful movement through diverse effects at cognitive, motivational, neurophysiological, and neuromuscular levels-ensuring that goals are effectively coupled with desired actions.”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Perception, rather than being a pure reflection of objective sensory reality, incorporates perceivers' assessments of their own and relevant others' abilities (Linkenauger, Witt, Stefanucci, Bakdash, & Proffitt, 2009;Witt et al., 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Outcome expectancies are central in the placebo response in which individuals expect that pharmacological and other interventions will lead to beneficial outcomes (Ashor, 2011;de la Fuente-Fernandez, 2009;Lidstone et al., 2010;Wager & Atlas, 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
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.
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
“Desirable experiences and outcomes produce psychological recognition, in the form of positive cognitions (e.g., efficacy and outcome expectations) and associated positive affective responses.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for enhanced expectancy 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Task enjoyment (Hutchinson et al., 2008) and positive affect as assessed by the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) also have been related to conditions that enhance expectancies (Stoate 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: 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
“Similarly, suppression of activity related to unanticipated response options has been found (Klein, Petitjean, Olivier, & Duque, 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
- Not checked yetcites Klein et al., 2014 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 a study using a Graffiti language learning task, which involved entering symbols into a personal digital assistant when prompted by the English-script cue, learners allowed to decide when they wanted to view the correct pairing of the English cue and respective symbol, as well as the viewing duration, before entering the symbol, outperformed their yoked counterparts (Patterson & Lee, 2010).”
§ 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 Patterson & Lee, 2010 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.
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
“Conditions that provide an opportunity for choice may be motivating, because they indicate that one will be able to control upcoming events.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Autonomy
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.
In the paper
“For example, in one study participants practiced a ski-simulator task and had, or did not have, the opportunity to decide on which trials to use poles that were placed on the floor to help them maintain their balance (Wulf & Toole).The participants in the self-controlled group showed more effective learning, as measured by performance on a retention test without the poles, than did their yoked”
§ 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 Wulf & Toole, 1999 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
“In other studies (Chiviacowsky et al., 2012a;Hartman, 2007), learning to balance on a stabilometer platform was facilitated by holding a balance pole horizontally when the use of that pole was chosen by the participants rather than imposed upon them.”
§ 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., 2012a
- Not checked yetcites Hartman, 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.
In the paper
“Along the same lines, Eitam, Kennedy, and Higgins (2013) demonstrated that human motivation is dependent on (the perception of) one's actions having effects on the environment.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Autonomy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eitam, Kennedy, and Higgins, 2013 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Allowing learners to choose the extent of practice or the spacing of practice trials has been found to lead to more effective learning than yoked control conditions (Post, Fairbrother, & Barros, 2011;Post, Fairbrother, Barros, & Kulpa, 2014).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Incidental Choices
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“When learners are given control over the use of physical assistive devices on balance tasks, learning was enhanced relative to the externally controlled use of those devices (yoked conditions) (Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Lewthwaite, & Campos, 2012;Hartman, 2007;Wulf, Clauss, Shea, & Whitacre, 2001;Wulf & Toole, 1999).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Control over practice conditions
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Studies with both humans (Tiger, Hanley, & Hernandez, 2006) and other animals (Catania, 1975;Catania & Sagvolden, 1980;Voss & Homzie, 1970) have shown that both prefer an option leading to a choice than an option that does not, even if this option results in greater effort or worksuggesting the existence of an inherent reward with the exercise of control (Karsh & Eitam, 2015;Leotti & Delgado, 2011”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Autonomy
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.
In the paper
“For example, Finn and Miele (2015) found that test takers preferred longer tests of difficult math problems with starting or ending sets of moderately difficult (successful) items to shorter tests of the same difficult math problems only.”
§ 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 Finn & Miele, 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.
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
“This finding is particularly interesting because, in a pilot study, Hartman did not find advantages to using the poles for the learning of this task, suggesting that control over an assistive device can have a beneficial effect on learning, even if that device in and of itself is relatively ineffective.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Control over practice conditions
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Enhanced learning with self-controlled feedback has been found with various movement tasks, including throwing tasks, in which feedback was provided about movement form (Janelle, Barba, Frehlich, Tennant, & Cauraugh, 1997) or the accuracy of the throws (Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Laroque de Medeiros, Kaefer, & Tani, 2008).Other researchers have found learning advantages of self-controlled feedback for”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Control over practice conditions
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Consistently, studies in the motor learning literature have shown that giving the learner control over certain aspects of the practice conditions enhances motor skill learning (for reviews, see Sanli, Patterson, Bray, & Lee, 2013;Wulf, 2007b).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Autonomy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sanli, Patterson, Bray, & Lee, 2013 source
- Not checked yetcites Wulf, 2007b
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.
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
“Behaviorally, as well, challenge or stress may alert learners to increase effort and attention to the task, improving 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Even if the effects of one's actions are trivial, intrinsic motivation is enhanced if the performer has control over those effects (termed Control Effect Motivation by Eitam et al.).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Autonomy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eitam et al., 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.
In the paper
“As shown in Figure 4a, throwing accuracy during both practice and retention was higher for the group that received autonomy-supportive rather than controlling language instructions during practice.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Instructional language
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hooyman et al., 2014 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.
In the paper
“In a study by Wulf, Raupach, and Pfeiffer (2005), participants practiced a basketball jump shot, and a video of a skilled model could either be requested by them or was provided to them at the respective times during practice.After a 7-day retention interval, the self-control group showed superior movement form compared with the yoked group.”
§ 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 Wulf, Raupach, and Pfeiffer, 2005 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.
In the paper
“Chiviacowsky and colleagues found similar learning benefits of self-controlled pole use for persons with Parkinson's disease.”
§ 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
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.
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
“Yet, we contend that the perception of autonomy has a more direct impact on learners' motivational state and, consequently, their motor control and learning.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: autonomy
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.
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
“Independent of which factor the learner is given control over-or whether this factor is even related to the task to be learned-the learning benefits appear to be very robust and generalizable to different tasks, age groups, and populations.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: autonomy
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Further, as the autonomy studies suggest, there are now a more substantial set of findings in which choice, perceived control, and other forms of autonomy support produce superior performance and/or learning than do control or yoked conditions without choice (see also Murayama, Matsumoto, Izuma, Sugiura, Ryan, Deci et al., 2015;Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
What the sources say
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The attentional focus effect has been explained with the constrained action hypothesis (Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001;Wulf, Shea, & Park, 2001), according to which an internal focus induces a conscious type of control-causing individuals to constrain their motor system by interfering with automatic control processes.”
§ 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 Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001
- Not checked yetcites Wulf, Shea, & Park, 2001
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
“Thus, one reason for the effectiveness of self-controlled conditions may be that they have the potential to enhance learners' self-efficacy (Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Cardozo, 2014;Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Drews, 2015).”
§ 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 Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Cardozo, 2014
- Not checked yetcites Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Drews, 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.
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 on the intended movement effect enhances all aspects of performance, independent of skill level, task, age, or (dis)ability.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Movement form
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.
In the paper
“In one experiment, allowing participants to choose the color of golf balls they were putting led to more effective task learning than a yoked condition.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Incidental Choices
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lewthwaite 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.
In the paper
“Giving participants a choice of ball color also has been found to increase the learning of a throwing task (Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Cardozo, 2014).”
§ 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, Chiviacowsky, & Cardozo, 2014
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.
In the paper
“Compared with self-control groups that were not provided a performance criterion or were given a criterion that was easier to reach (30 ms), self-efficacy was lower in that group and learning was degraded.”
§ 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 Chiviacowsky, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2012
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
“Groups with self-controlled feedback tend to receive feedback more after good trials (i.e., with smaller errors) than after poor trials compared with control groups (Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2002;Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Medeiros, Kaefer, & Tani, 2008;Patterson & Carter, 2010;Patterson, Carter, & Sanli, 2011).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support 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.
In the paper
“Letting participants choose the order in which they wanted to perform balance exercises resulted in more effective learning of those exercises than not giving them this choice (Wulf & Adams, 2014).”
§ 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 & Adams, 2014
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
“In psychological science, the undermining impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, such as that demonstrated when external rewards are provided after performance but removed subsequently, is well known (Deci, Ryan, & Koestner, 1999;White & Sheldon, 2014).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
What the sources say
boosteddirect- 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 authors state this as an assumption: The undermining effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation reflects the controlling aspects of reward on behavior.
In the paper
“In a case study with a professional kickboxer, letting him choose the order of punches resulted in greater punching velocity and impact forces than a prescribed order of punches (Halperin, Chapman, Martin, & Wulf, 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Incidental Choices
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Halperin, Chapman, Martin, & Wulf, 2015
plaindirectSingle case- 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
“It seems likely that autonomy-supportive conditions instill a generalized sense of agency for learners that increases their own confidence in being able to do well on a given task.”
§ 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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Interestingly, self-efficacy can also be increased by autonomy-supportive relative to controlling task instructions (Hooyman et al., 2014, Reeve & Tseng, 2011).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support 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.
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
“Furthermore, in both studies, perceived autonomy or choice was significantly correlated with self-efficacy.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support effects
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.
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, a single external focus instruction enhanced both movement form and outcome in novices.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Movement form
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.
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, when given the opportunity, learners appear to use feedback as a means to protect or enhance their perceptions of competence.”
§ 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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Experimental evidence has amassed for the benefits of adopting an external focus on the intended movement effect (e.g., on an implement) relative to an internal focus on body movements (for reviews, see Lohse, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2012;Marchant, 2011;Wulf, 2007aWulf, , 2013)).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > External focus of attention
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lohse, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2012
- Not checked yetcites Marchant, 2011
- Not checked yetcites Wulf, 2007a
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.
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
“In either case, enhanced performance or learning with an external relative to an internal focus has been found for various measures of movement effectiveness (e.g., accuracy in hitting a target, producing a certain amount of force, maintaining a balance position) and efficiency (e.g., reduced muscular activity, oxygen consumption, heart rate).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > External focus of attention
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.
- Rests on an assumption: 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 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
“As outlined above, providing learners with control, or supporting their need for autonomy, has been found to enhance learning in numerous studies.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: autonomy
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.
In the paper
“In a second experiment by Lewthwaite et al., the findings were even more compelling: The learning of a balance task (stabilometer) was enhanced in a group in which participants were given a choice related to one of two tasks they would practice afterwards and in which they were asked their opinion as to which of two prints of paintings should be hung in the laboratory.That is, relative to a yoked”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Incidental Choices
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lewthwaite et al., 2015 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the undermining effect of extrinsic rewards is not universal (Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron, 1999;Lutz, Pedroni, Nadig, Luechinger, & Jäncke, 2012;Marsden, Ma, Deci, Ryan, & Chiu, 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for autonomy-support 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.
In the paper
“Importantly, even giving individuals choices that are incidental to the motor task has been demonstrated to have a positive effect on the learning of that task (Lewthwaite, Chiviacowsky, & Wulf, 2015).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Incidental Choices
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lewthwaite, Chiviacowsky, & Wulf, 2015 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Increased task interest (Lewthwaite et al., 2015) and motivation to learn (Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Lewthwaite, & Campos, 2012) when learners are given a choice has indeed been found.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Interim summary: autonomy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lewthwaite et al., 2015 source
- Not checked yetcites Chiviacowsky, Wulf, Lewthwaite, & Campos, 2012
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.
In the paper
“Whereas various possible accounts of this phenomenon have been offered (for a review, see Vickers, 2009), it seems likely that an external attentional focus promoted by the visual focus on an external object is at least partially responsible for the performance effects (Vine, Moore, Wilson, 2011, 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 matchedcites Vine, Moore, Wilson, 2011, 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Not matched
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 seems to be a precondition for optimal motor performance.”
§ 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
“Thus, an external focus is an important contributor to goal-action coupling (Figure 3).”
§ 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.
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
“Directing performers' attention to the (environmental) effects of their movements (external focus), rather than to the coordination of their body movements per se (internal focus), results in more effective performance and learning.”
§ 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.
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 advantage of adopting a focus on the intended outcome (e.g., landing location) may be that it directs concentration to the intended movement effect or task goal.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, the attentional demands of the task have been shown to be reduced when performers adopt an external rather than internal focus (Kal, van der Kamp, and Houdijk, 2013;Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001).”
§ 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 Kal, van der Kamp, and Houdijk, 2013 source
- Not checked yetcites Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In another line of research, the so-called”
§ 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 Moore, Vine, Freeman, & Wilson, 2013 source
- Not checked yetcites Vickers, 1996
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The reliability of the external focus benefits across tasks, skill levels, age groups, or other individual differences (Wulf 2007a(Wulf , 2013) ) suggests that the necessity of focusing on the intended movement effect to achieve successful outcomes reflects a fundamental movement principle.”
§ 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 Wulf 2007a
- Not checked yetcites Wulf, 2013
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Structural connections within brain regions concern gray and white matter and more localized projections and pathways that develop through practice and use (Dayan & Cohen, 2011;Draganski & May, 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
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.
In the paper
“Furthermore, these drivers may suppress off-task and self-focused attention, buffering learners from these obstacles to optimal performance (McKiernan, Kaufman, Kucera-Thompson, & Binder, 2003).”
§ 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 McKiernan, Kaufman, Kucera-Thompson, & Binder, 2003 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.
- Rests on an assumption: The default mode network typically does not overlap with functional groupings involved in goal-directed and motor tasks.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, by reliably producing more successful performance outcomes and ease of movement as noted above, an external attentional focus contributes to enhanced expectancies for positive outcomes (Pascua, Wulf, and Lewthwaite, 2015;Shafizadeh, Platt, & Bahram, 2013;Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Cardozo, 2014) through mechanisms described in earlier sections.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Mechanisms for attentional focus 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dopamine, in its motivational role, also contributes to the consolidation of motor memories when present during and after motor practice (Sugawara, Tanaka, Okazaki, Watanabe, Sadato, 2012;Wise, 2004).”
§ 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 Sugawara, Tanaka, Okazaki, Watanabe, Sadato, 2012
- 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: 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
“An external focus on the intended movement effect also appears to increase”
§ 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 Loosch, 1995
- Not checked yetcites Müller & Loosch, 1999
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.
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 posit that practice under optimal motivational and attentional focus conditions facilitates the development of more effective neural connections in support of better performance and more efficient learning.”
§ 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.
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
“It is likely that enhanced expectancies for success will influence the facility with which a beneficial task focus can be identified and held in concentration.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conclusions and predictions
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.
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, instructors often neglect to enhance learners' expectancies, do not recognize and support their need for autonomy, and induce an internal focus of attention (Figure 8a).”
§ 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.
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
“Instructions or feedback that promote an external focus of attention by directing concentration to a relevant and appropriate external goal are reliably more helpful than internal attention focused on body parts or movement coordination.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conclusions and predictions
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.
In the paper
“The salience network has recently been identified as critical in executing the switch between networks focused on exogenous and self-referential processing to reposition the organism for new tasks (Sridharan et al., 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
- Not checked yetcites Sridharan et al., 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.
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
“Direct consequences of such an approach would be low learner self-efficacy, little or no positive affect, increased self-focus, and limited capacity to focus on the task goal.”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such connectivity appears to be a hallmark of experienced and expert performers (Di et al., 2012;Ito et al., 2015;Kim et al., 2015;Kim et al., 2014;Li et al., 2015;Milton et al., 2007).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conclusions and predictions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Di et al., 2012
- Not checked yetcites Ito et al., 2015
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al., 2015 source
hedgedcorrelational- 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.
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
“Direct consequences of such an approach would be low learner self-efficacy, little or no positive affect, increased self-focus, and limited capacity to focus on the task goal.”
§ 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.
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, simple changes in the wording of task instructions and feedback that are often used in applied settings (i.e., scenario 1) might be sufficient to create the conditions necessary for optimal learning.”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In a typical scenario, the instructor (e.g., coach, physical therapist, music teacher) selects the tasks to be practiced, describes how movements should be performed, gives corrective feedback, and instructions that refer to the coordination of body movements.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Practical implications
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.
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, instructors often neglect to enhance learners' expectancies, do not recognize and support their need for autonomy, and induce an internal focus of attention (Figure 8a).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Practical implications
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.
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, instructors often neglect to enhance learners' expectancies, do not recognize and support their need for autonomy, and induce an internal focus of attention (Figure 8a).”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Practical implications
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.
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
“Conditions that enhance expectancies for future performance success, including potential satisfaction of the psychological need for competence are important.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conclusions and predictions
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.
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
“Confidence in their ability to perform well, in combination with an instructed external focus, should facilitate successful movement outcomes.”
§ 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.
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
“Direct consequences of such an approach would be low learner self-efficacy, little or no positive affect, increased self-focus, and limited capacity to focus on the task goal.”
§ 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.
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 provide a plausible mechanism for the diverse effects of expectation of positive experiences or outcomes as defined by the mover; these expectations stimulate a dopaminergic response.”
§ 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.
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
“Circumstances that provide an opportunity for choice or self-determination, even minimally, influence learners' sense of agency or autonomy, with consistently beneficial results.”
§ 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.
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
“Direct consequences of such an approach would be low learner self-efficacy, little or no positive affect, increased self-focus, and limited capacity to focus on the task goal.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Reward-related dopamine boosts the replay or reactivation of memories during rest that contribute to consolidation (Ewell & Leutgeb, 2014).”
§ 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 Ewell & Leutgeb, 2014 source
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.
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
“Effective structural connections within brain regions would appear to lay the groundwork for the establishment of efficient functional connections across brain networks.”
§ Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning > Conclusions and predictions
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. 70
- Probably not a substantial claim. 31
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked 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
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
“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
Setting the scientific stage for esports psychology: a systematic review
Pedraza-Ramirez, I., Musculus, L., Raab, M., & Laborde, S. (2020) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2020.1723122 · Cited by 373
Chen, Y., Fanchiang, H. D., & Howard, A. (2018) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzx107 · Cited by 257
Gokeler, A., Neuhaus, D., Benjaminse, A., Grooms, D. R., & Baumeister, J. (2019) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01058-0 · Cited by 228
Lin, S., Tseng, H., Shirazi, F., Hajli, N., & Tsai, P.-T. (2022) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-12-2021-0903 · Cited by 202
Chua, L.-K., Díaz, J. J., Lewthwaite, R., Kim, T., & Wulf, G. (2021) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000335 · Cited by 205
Self-citation
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).
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
