The role of pre-performance and in-game emotions on cognitive interference during sport performance: The moderating role of self-confidence and reappraisal

In this research we examined whether prevalent pre-performance (Study 1) and in-game (Study 2) emotions were associated with cognitive interference (i.e., thoughts of escape, task irrelevant thoughts and performance worries), and whether any effects were moderated by reappraisal and self-confidence. In Study 1, we found team sport players’ pre-performance anxiety positively, and excitement negatively, predicted cognitive interference during a competitive match. However, no moderating effects for reappraisal or confidence were revealed. In Study 2, we found that badminton players’ in-game anxiety, dejection and happiness positively predicted, whereas excitement negatively predicted, cognitive interference during a competitive match. Moreover, reappraisal and confidence moderated the relationships for excitement and happiness with task irrelevant thoughts. Our findings underscore the role that pre-performance and in-game emotions can play on athletes thought processing during sport performance, as well as highlight the importance of considering self-confidence and reappraisal on the role of in-game emotions on cognitive interference

Conscious control is associated with freezing of mechanical degrees of freedom during motor learning

This study investigated whether conscious control is associated with freezing of mechanical degrees of freedom during motor learning. Participants practiced a throwing task using either error-strewn or error-reduced practice protocols, which encourage high or low levels of conscious control, respectively. After 24 hr, participants engaged in a series of delayed retention and transfer tests. Furthermore, propensity for conscious control was assessed using participants' ratings and freezing was gauged through movement variability of the throwing arm. Performance was defined by mean radial error. In the error-strewn group, propensity for conscious control was positively associated with both freezing and performance. In the error-reduced group, propensity for conscious control was negatively associated with performance, but not with freezing. These results suggest that conscious control is associated with freezing of mechanical degrees of freedom during motor learning

ACL injury prevention, more effective with a different way of motor learning?

What happens to the transference of learning proper jump-landing technique in isolation when an individual is expected to perform at a competitive level yet tries to maintain proper jump-landing technique? This is the key question for researchers, physical therapists, athletic trainers and coaches involved in ACL injury prevention in athletes. The need for ACL injury prevention is clear, however, in spite of these ongoing initiatives and reported early successes, ACL injury rates and the associated gender disparity have not diminished. One problem could be the difficulties with the measurements of injury rates and the difficulties with the implementation of thorough large scale injury prevention programs. A second issue could be the transition from conscious awareness during training sessions on technique in the laboratory to unexpected and automatic movements during a training or game involves complicated motor control adaptations. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the issue of motor learning in relation to ACL injury prevention and to post suggestions for future research. ACL injury prevention programs addressing explicit rules regarding desired landing positions by emphasizing proper alignment of the hip, knee, and ankle are reported in the literature. This may very well be a sensible way, but the use of explicit strategies may be less suitable for the acquisition of the control of complex motor skills (Maxwell et al. J Sports Sci 18:111-120, 2000). Sufficient literature on motor learning and it variations point in that direction

Stay focused! The effects of internal and external focus of attention on movement automaticity in patients with stroke

© 2015 Kal et al.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Dual-task performance is often impaired after stroke. This may be resolved by enhancing patients' automaticity of movement. This study sets out to test the constrained action hypothesis, which holds that automaticity of movement is enhanced by triggering an external focus (on movement effects), rather than an internal focus (on movement execution). Thirty-nine individuals with chronic, unilateral stroke performed a one-leg-stepping task with both legs in single- and dual-task conditions. Attentional focus was manipulated with instructions. Motor performance (movement speed), movement automaticity (fluency of movement), and dual-task performance (dual-task costs) were assessed. The effects of focus on movement speed, single- and dual-task movement fluency, and dual-task costs were analysed with generalized estimating equations. Results showed that, overall, singletask performance was unaffected by focus (p =.341). Regarding movement fluency, no main effects of focus were found in single- or dual-task conditions (p's ≥.13). However, focus by leg interactions suggested that an external focus reduced movement fluency of the paretic leg compared to an internal focus (single-task conditions: p =.068; dual-task conditions: p =.084). An external focus also tended to result in inferior dual-task performance (β = -2.38, p =.065). Finally, a near-significant interaction (β = 2.36, p =.055) suggested that dual-task performance was more constrained by patients' attentional capacity in external focus conditions. We conclude that, compared to an internal focus, an external focus did not result in more automated movements in chronic stroke patients. Contrary to expectations, trends were found for enhanced automaticity with an internal focus. These findings might be due to patients' strong preference to use an internal focus in daily life. Future work needs to establish the more permanent effects of learning with different attentional foci on re-automating motor control after stroke

Is implicit motor learning preserved after stroke? A systematic review with meta-analysis

© 2016 Kal et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Many stroke patients experience difficulty with performing dual-tasks. A promising intervention to target this issue is implicit motor learning, as it should enhance patients' automaticity of movement. Yet, although it is often thought that implicit motor learning is preserved poststroke, evidence for this claim has not been systematically analysed yet. Therefore, we systematically reviewed whether implicit motor learning is preserved post-stroke, and whether patients benefit more from implicit than from explicit motor learning. We comprehensively searched conventional (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, PEDro, PsycINFO) and grey literature databases (BIOSIS, Web of Science, OpenGrey, British Library, trial registries) for relevant reports. Two independent reviewers screened reports, extracted data, and performed a risk of bias assessment. Overall, we included 20 out of the 2177 identified reports that allow for a succinct evaluation of implicit motor learning. Of these, only 1 study investigated learning on a relatively complex, whole-body (balance board) task. All 19 other studies concerned variants of the serial-reaction time paradigm, with most of these focusing on learning with the unaffected hand (N = 13) rather than the affected hand or both hands (both: N = 4). Four of the 20 studies compared explicit and implicit motor learning post-stroke. Meta-analyses suggest that patients with stroke can learn implicitly with their unaffected side (mean difference (MD) = 69 ms, 95% CI[45.1, 92.9], p < .00001), but not with their affected side (standardized MD = -.11, 95% CI[-.45, .25], p = .56). Finally, implicit motor learning seemed equally effective as explicit motor learning post-stroke (SMD = -.54, 95% CI[-1.37, .29], p = .20). However, overall, the high risk of bias, small samples, and limited clinical relevance of most studies make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions regarding the effect of implicit motor learning strategies post-stroke. High quality studies with larger samples are warranted to test implicit motor learning in clinically relevant contexts