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...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
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 |