The effect of attentional focus in balancing tasks: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Purpose: The present study was to use the aggregate data meta-analytic approach to examine the effects of attentional focus during balancing tasks in motor learning. Method: A literature search was conducted based on five electronic database searches, cross-referencing and expert review. Studies inc...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Taewon Kim, Judith Jimenez-Diaz, Jing Chen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Alicante 2017-07-01
Series:Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.jhse.ua.es/article/view/2017-v12-n2-attentional-focus-balancing-tasks-systematic-review-meta-analysis
id doaj-396b3978d806461794081095c88cb2e1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-396b3978d806461794081095c88cb2e12020-11-25T01:49:35ZengUniversity of AlicanteJournal of Human Sport and Exercise1988-52022017-07-0112246347910.14198/jhse.2017.122.229567The effect of attentional focus in balancing tasks: A systematic review with meta-analysisTaewon Kim0Judith Jimenez-Diaz1Jing Chen2Texas A&M UniversityUniversity of Costa RicaTexas A&M UniversityPurpose: The present study was to use the aggregate data meta-analytic approach to examine the effects of attentional focus during balancing tasks in motor learning. Method: A literature search was conducted based on five electronic database searches, cross-referencing and expert review. Studies included randomized trials of external (EF) versus internal focus (IF). Risk of bias was assessed using a self-developed instrument. Random effects models using the standardized mean difference effect size (ES) were used to pooled results. Heterogeneity was examined using the Q statistic and inconsistency using I2. Results: Of 790 studies screened, 16 representing 541 males and females and up to 17 ES met the inclusion criteria. Analyses indicated that the EF groups outperformed the IF groups for acquisition phase (ES= 0.48, n= 16; CI95%= 0.07 to 0.90, Q= 68.7, I2= 78.2%), retention (ES= 0.44, n= 17, CI95%= 0.14 to 0.74; Q= 26.1, I2= 38.6%), and transfer (ES= 1.41, n= 4, CI95%= 1.00 to 1.82, Q= 22, I2= 0%). Conclusion: The overall results suggest that EF results in better balance learning when compared to IF.https://www.jhse.ua.es/article/view/2017-v12-n2-attentional-focus-balancing-tasks-systematic-review-meta-analysisMotor learningFocus of attentionBalanceStabilitySystematic review
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Taewon Kim
Judith Jimenez-Diaz
Jing Chen
spellingShingle Taewon Kim
Judith Jimenez-Diaz
Jing Chen
The effect of attentional focus in balancing tasks: A systematic review with meta-analysis
Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
Motor learning
Focus of attention
Balance
Stability
Systematic review
author_facet Taewon Kim
Judith Jimenez-Diaz
Jing Chen
author_sort Taewon Kim
title The effect of attentional focus in balancing tasks: A systematic review with meta-analysis
title_short The effect of attentional focus in balancing tasks: A systematic review with meta-analysis
title_full The effect of attentional focus in balancing tasks: A systematic review with meta-analysis
title_fullStr The effect of attentional focus in balancing tasks: A systematic review with meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed The effect of attentional focus in balancing tasks: A systematic review with meta-analysis
title_sort effect of attentional focus in balancing tasks: a systematic review with meta-analysis
publisher University of Alicante
series Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
issn 1988-5202
publishDate 2017-07-01
description Purpose: The present study was to use the aggregate data meta-analytic approach to examine the effects of attentional focus during balancing tasks in motor learning. Method: A literature search was conducted based on five electronic database searches, cross-referencing and expert review. Studies included randomized trials of external (EF) versus internal focus (IF). Risk of bias was assessed using a self-developed instrument. Random effects models using the standardized mean difference effect size (ES) were used to pooled results. Heterogeneity was examined using the Q statistic and inconsistency using I2. Results: Of 790 studies screened, 16 representing 541 males and females and up to 17 ES met the inclusion criteria. Analyses indicated that the EF groups outperformed the IF groups for acquisition phase (ES= 0.48, n= 16; CI95%= 0.07 to 0.90, Q= 68.7, I2= 78.2%), retention (ES= 0.44, n= 17, CI95%= 0.14 to 0.74; Q= 26.1, I2= 38.6%), and transfer (ES= 1.41, n= 4, CI95%= 1.00 to 1.82, Q= 22, I2= 0%). Conclusion: The overall results suggest that EF results in better balance learning when compared to IF.
topic Motor learning
Focus of attention
Balance
Stability
Systematic review
url https://www.jhse.ua.es/article/view/2017-v12-n2-attentional-focus-balancing-tasks-systematic-review-meta-analysis
work_keys_str_mv AT taewonkim theeffectofattentionalfocusinbalancingtasksasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT judithjimenezdiaz theeffectofattentionalfocusinbalancingtasksasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT jingchen theeffectofattentionalfocusinbalancingtasksasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT taewonkim effectofattentionalfocusinbalancingtasksasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT judithjimenezdiaz effectofattentionalfocusinbalancingtasksasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
AT jingchen effectofattentionalfocusinbalancingtasksasystematicreviewwithmetaanalysis
_version_ 1725006371091382272