1 / 13

Focus of attention

Focus of attention. Conscious processing, effect foci, skill, and skill development. Two goals. The current state of attentional focus literature. An example of how research proceeds (and similarities with class objectives). Construct validity. Attentional focus...a typical finding.

truly
Download Presentation

Focus of attention

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Focus of attention Conscious processing, effect foci, skill, and skill development.

  2. Two goals • The current state of attentional focus literature. • An example of how research proceeds (and similarities with class objectives).

  3. Construct validity Attentional focus...a typical finding • Focus of attention • Wulf, McNevin, & Shea (2001) • “Focus on keeping your feet horizontal.” • “Focus on keeping the board horizontal.” • External validity: • Task type? • Novel? • Difficult? • Individual differences • Experience? • Age?

  4. Other examples... • Basketball, volleyball, soccer, golf, weight lifting, vertical jump, long jump, using a pedalo, ski simulator, swimming, dart throwing, novices and experts, older/younger, stroke victims, Parkinson's victims. • External validity: • Broad application across tasks? • Broad application across individual differences?

  5. See Wulf, McNevin, Shea, 2001, again. The theory (home of the constructs) • Action-effect principle (Prinz, 1997) • Actions are planned with reference to their effects • -->use an “effect” focus when learning/performing • Constrained action hypothesis (Wulf, Nevin, Shea, 2001) • Focusing on body (internal focus) interferes with automatic processing. Increases conscious or controlled processing. • Focusing on effects: • asserts “effect planning”, • prevents conscious processing, • affords automatic processing

  6. Doesn’t fit conscious processing hypothesis Doesn’t fit conscious processing hypothesis Fits conscious processing hypothesis Exceptions “prove the rule” [“Prove” used to mean test – so this means exceptions test the rule, or hypothesis in this case] • Ford (2005) • Look at instructions & results

  7. Exceptions “prove the rule” • So, what changed the results? • Level of learning? • Instructions? • Beilock (02), Ford (05) • “De-automotization of skill” • External focus only beneficial when skill is automatic • Internal focus useful when learning skill (cognitive stage – need to think about performance, and no automatic processing present to disrupt performance).

  8. External better than both internal & control Exceptions “prove the rule” • But wait... • Wulf & Su (2007) • Here it seems Beilock’s idea doesn’t & can’t fit the data...

  9. External better than both internal & control Nothing better than control! Exceptions “prove the rule” • Compare Wulf and Su with Ford (05)

  10. This one factor of the study which is proposed to change the results is called a moderator variable Searching for moderators (or their absence) is essentially what I’m urging you to do each week and for the midterm See how construct validity can make a difference? Exceptions “prove the rule” • Compare Wulf and Su with Ford (05) • Maybe in Ford’s study, the external just doesn’t work? • Ford (and Beilock) simply had people perform an distracting task. They didn’t actually exert an external direct focus on movement outcomes.

  11. Spot the moderator! No sig group differences - anywhere Our papers this week • Lawrence et al. (2011)

  12. Spot the moderator! External/board group better Our papers this week • Jackson & Holmes (2011) • Attentional focus vs. task objective • Regular group performance

  13. No main effect, but an interaction Consistent has a trend of being better? Our papers this week • Jackson & Holmes (2011) • Attentional focus vs. task objective • Instructional consistency

More Related