Kevin A. Becker , Nicholas A. Levine , Christopher A. Aiken
{"title":"关注过程还是结果?这取决于任务目标。","authors":"Kevin A. Becker , Nicholas A. Levine , Christopher A. Aiken","doi":"10.1016/j.humov.2025.103416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>An abundance of research supports an external focus enhancing motor performance relative to an internal focus. However, this blanket recommendation loses some nuance of what types of external cues might be most effective. Some studies have compared a proximal and distal external focus, but this comparison is often confounded by differences in both spatial and temporal distance. In the present study, we aimed to determine how internal and external focus cues that direct attention to either the process or outcome of the movement (i.e., differing in temporal distance, but not spatial distance) impacted hex bar deadlift performance. Twenty-four participants (16 females) experienced in strength training performed hex bar deadlifts with 60 % of their self-reported 1RM. Familiarization trials were followed by conditions using an internal-process (IP), internal-outcome (IO), external-process (EP), and external-outcome (EO) focus presented in a counterbalanced order. Peak velocity, average velocity, and vertical bar displacement were subjected to repeated measures ANOVAs to test for differences due to focus. Peak velocity was impacted by focus with an EP leading to higher values than IO and IP. For average velocity EP had higher values than IO, and approached higher values than IP. For vertical bar displacement, EO led to greater displacement than IO and IP, but did not differ from EP. The present findings suggest EP was most effective for enhancing velocity (primary goal), but EO maximized displacement. These differing findings suggest that the best external focus cues are those which most closely align with important task goals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55046,"journal":{"name":"Human Movement Science","volume":"104 ","pages":"Article 103416"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Focus on the process or outcome? It depends on the task goal\",\"authors\":\"Kevin A. Becker , Nicholas A. Levine , Christopher A. Aiken\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.humov.2025.103416\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>An abundance of research supports an external focus enhancing motor performance relative to an internal focus. However, this blanket recommendation loses some nuance of what types of external cues might be most effective. Some studies have compared a proximal and distal external focus, but this comparison is often confounded by differences in both spatial and temporal distance. In the present study, we aimed to determine how internal and external focus cues that direct attention to either the process or outcome of the movement (i.e., differing in temporal distance, but not spatial distance) impacted hex bar deadlift performance. Twenty-four participants (16 females) experienced in strength training performed hex bar deadlifts with 60 % of their self-reported 1RM. Familiarization trials were followed by conditions using an internal-process (IP), internal-outcome (IO), external-process (EP), and external-outcome (EO) focus presented in a counterbalanced order. Peak velocity, average velocity, and vertical bar displacement were subjected to repeated measures ANOVAs to test for differences due to focus. Peak velocity was impacted by focus with an EP leading to higher values than IO and IP. For average velocity EP had higher values than IO, and approached higher values than IP. For vertical bar displacement, EO led to greater displacement than IO and IP, but did not differ from EP. The present findings suggest EP was most effective for enhancing velocity (primary goal), but EO maximized displacement. These differing findings suggest that the best external focus cues are those which most closely align with important task goals.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Movement Science\",\"volume\":\"104 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103416\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Movement Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167945725000983\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Movement Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167945725000983","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Focus on the process or outcome? It depends on the task goal
An abundance of research supports an external focus enhancing motor performance relative to an internal focus. However, this blanket recommendation loses some nuance of what types of external cues might be most effective. Some studies have compared a proximal and distal external focus, but this comparison is often confounded by differences in both spatial and temporal distance. In the present study, we aimed to determine how internal and external focus cues that direct attention to either the process or outcome of the movement (i.e., differing in temporal distance, but not spatial distance) impacted hex bar deadlift performance. Twenty-four participants (16 females) experienced in strength training performed hex bar deadlifts with 60 % of their self-reported 1RM. Familiarization trials were followed by conditions using an internal-process (IP), internal-outcome (IO), external-process (EP), and external-outcome (EO) focus presented in a counterbalanced order. Peak velocity, average velocity, and vertical bar displacement were subjected to repeated measures ANOVAs to test for differences due to focus. Peak velocity was impacted by focus with an EP leading to higher values than IO and IP. For average velocity EP had higher values than IO, and approached higher values than IP. For vertical bar displacement, EO led to greater displacement than IO and IP, but did not differ from EP. The present findings suggest EP was most effective for enhancing velocity (primary goal), but EO maximized displacement. These differing findings suggest that the best external focus cues are those which most closely align with important task goals.
期刊介绍:
Human Movement Science provides a medium for publishing disciplinary and multidisciplinary studies on human movement. It brings together psychological, biomechanical and neurophysiological research on the control, organization and learning of human movement, including the perceptual support of movement. The overarching goal of the journal is to publish articles that help advance theoretical understanding of the control and organization of human movement, as well as changes therein as a function of development, learning and rehabilitation. The nature of the research reported may vary from fundamental theoretical or empirical studies to more applied studies in the fields of, for example, sport, dance and rehabilitation with the proviso that all studies have a distinct theoretical bearing. Also, reviews and meta-studies advancing the understanding of human movement are welcome.
These aims and scope imply that purely descriptive studies are not acceptable, while methodological articles are only acceptable if the methodology in question opens up new vistas in understanding the control and organization of human movement. The same holds for articles on exercise physiology, which in general are not supported, unless they speak to the control and organization of human movement. In general, it is required that the theoretical message of articles published in Human Movement Science is, to a certain extent, innovative and not dismissible as just "more of the same."