Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/25354
Title: Optimal Training for Movement Acquisition and Transfer: Does ‘Externally-Focused' Visual Biofeedback Promote Implicit Motor Learning?
Authors: Kal, E
Ellmers, T
Hogg, JA
Slutsky-Ganesh, AB
Bonnette, S
Thomas, S
Riehm, CD
Myer, GD
Diekfuss, JA
Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament;ACL;biofeedback;motor learning;external focus;implicit learning,
Issue Date: 9-Oct-2022
Publisher: Allen Press on behalf of National Athletic Trainers' Association
Citation: Kal, E. et al. (2022) 'Optimal Training for Movement Acquisition and Transfer: Does ‘Externally-Focused' Visual Biofeedback Promote Implicit Motor Learning?', Journal of Athletic Training, 58 (7-8), pp. 648 - 654. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-0166.22.
Abstract: Context: Visual biofeedback has been shown to facilitate injury-resistant movement acquisition in adolescent athletes. Visual biofeedback is typically thought to foster implicit learning, by stimulating athletes to focus attention externally (on movement outcome). However, biofeedback may also induce explicit learning, if the athlete uses the visual information to consciously guide movement execution (using an internal focus). Objective: To determine the degree to which athletes report statements indicative of implicit or explicit motor learning after engaging in a visual biofeedback intervention. Design: Prospective cohort. Setting: 3D motion analysis laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Twenty-five adolescent female soccer athletes (15.9±0.9 yrs, 164.9±5.67 cm, 58.9±10.3 kg). Interventions: Standard six-week neuromuscular training intervention (three 90-minute sessions/week), with added visual biofeedback sessions (two sessions/week). For the biofeedback training, participants performed squatting and jumping movements while interacting with a visual rectangular stimulus that mapped key parameters associated with injury risk. After the last biofeedback session in each week, participants answered open-ended questions to probe learning strategies. Main Outcome Measures: Responses to the open-ended questions were categorized as “externally focused” (i.e., on movement outcome, suggestive of implicit learning), “internally focused” (i.e., on movement itself; suggestive of explicit learning), “mixed focus”, or “other.” Results: 171 open-ended responses were 25 collected. Most of the responses that could be categorized (39.2%) were externally focused (41.8%) followed by mixed (38.8%), and internally focused (19.4%). The frequency of external focus statements increased from week 1 (18%) to week 6 (50%). Conclusions: While most statements were externally focused (suggesting implicit learning), the relatively large proportion of internal/mixed focus statements suggests many athletes also engaged in explicit motor learning, especially in early practice sessions. Therefore, biofeedback may impact motor learning through a mixture of implicit/explicit learning.
URI: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/25354
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0166.22
ISSN: 1062-6050
Appears in Collections:Dept of Health Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdfCopyright © by the National Athletic Trainers’ Association, Inc. This article is open access (see: https://meridian.allenpress.com/DocumentLibrary/NATA/2020_JAT_Authors'_Guide%20with%20AI%20guidelines.pdf).286.12 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.