See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/309474281

Verbal Cues and Attentional Focus: A Simulated Target-

Shooting Experiment

Article in Journal of Motor Learning and Development · June 2017

DOI: 10.1123/jmld.2016-0017

CITATIONS READS

29 2,514

2 authors:

Louisa D Raisbeck Jed A. Diekfuss

University of North Carolina at Greensboro Emory University
72 PUBLICATIONS 479 CITATIONS 119 PUBLICATIONS 960 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jed A. Diekfuss on 12 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 2017, 5, 148  -159
https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2016-0017
© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Verbal Cues and Attentional Focus:

A Simulated Target-Shooting Experiment
Louisa D. Raisbeck and Jed A. Diekfuss
University of North Carolina–Greensboro

Performance benefits exist for an external focus of attention compared with an inter-
nal focus of attention for performance and learning (Wulf, 2013). It is unknown,
however, if varying the number of verbal cues affects learning and performance.
Focus of attention and the number of verbal cues were manipulated during a simu-
lated handgun-shooting task. For the internal focus conditions, participants were
told to focus on their hand, arm, and wrist, whereas the external focus instructions
were to focus on the gun, gun barrel, and gun stock. To manipulate the number
of verbal cues, participants received instruction to focus on a single verbal cue or
multiple verbal cues. Shooting performance was assessed at baseline, acquisition,
and at two separate retention phases (immediate, delayed) that included transfer
tests. Participants completed the NASA—Task Load Index to assess workload
following all trials. Participants who received one verbal cue performed signifi-
cantly better during immediate retention than those who received three verbal
cues. Participants who used external focus of attention instructions had higher
performance and reported less workload at delayed retention compared to those
who used internal focus instructions. This research provides further support for
the benefits of an external focus and highlights the importance of minimizing the
number of verbal cues.

Keywords: workload, motor performance, motor learning

It has been well established that verbal instruction is one of the most common
components of teaching (McKenzie, Clark, & McKenzie, 1984). One specific
component of instruction, the focus of attention, is considered highly influential
on resulting motor performance and learning (Wulf, Shea, & Lewthwaite, 2010).
Defined by Wulf, Höß, & Prinz (1998), an internal focus directs attention inwardly
to focus on specific movement, whereas an external focus directs attention to the
effects of the individual’s actions on the environment. Extensive research has
shown that an internal focus disrupts movement execution, whereas an external
focus promotes automaticity (e.g., Lohse, Sherwood, & Healy, 2010). Research
investigating the benefits of an external focus of attention has used a variety of
motor behavior tasks and activities ranging from rudimentary balance tasks (e.g.,

Raisbeck and Diekfuss are with the Dept. of Kinesiology, University of North Carolina, Greensboro,
NC. Please address author correspondence to Louisa Raisbeck at ldraisbe@uncg.edu

148
 A Simulated Target-Shooting Experiment   149

McNevin, Shea, & Wulf, 2003; Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001) to more complex
athletic-based tasks such as basketball (e.g., Al-Abood, Bennett, Hernandez, Ash-
ford, & Davids, 2002; Zachry, Wulf, Mercer, & Bezodis, 2005), volleyball (e.g.,
Wulf, McConnel, Gärtner, & Schwarz, 2002), and golf (e.g., Wulf & Su, 2007).
Results from such studies have replicated the findings to support the notion that an
external focus of attention is typically superior to an internal focus of attention for
performance and learning (for reviews, see Wulf, 2007, 2013). For example, simply
instructing participants, through the use of verbal cues, to focus on the wheels of
a ski simulator as opposed to on their feet resulted in enhanced balance learning
(Wulf et al., 1998; Experiment 1).
The importance of verbal cues on performance and learning have been well
established (Singer, 1978). Verbal cues are short phrases that consist of one or two
words designed to direct a performer’s attention to relevant stimuli or other key
movement patterns of a motor skill (Landin, 1994). For example, Ziegler (1987)
had novice tennis players return serves using forehand and backhand returns, and
Ziegler manipulated when the participants were to focus on specific verbal cues.
Ziegler found significant increases in the number of successful returns once the
verbal cues were administered, suggesting accelerated skill acquisition resulting
from the verbal cues. Importantly, verbal cues need to be only one word, as it can
prompt a successful movement (Masser, 1993) as well as several features of the
movement (Landin, Cutton, & Macdonald, 1991). It is also important that verbal
cues be minimal, applicable to the task, skill-level appropriate, and accurate (Rink,
2006). Findings from these and similar studies suggest that instructing individuals
with a single verbal cue will block out any internal or external distractions and help
orient attentional capacity (Singer, 1988).
Although evidence exists to support that instruction should be concise and
direct attention to the external aspects of the skill, this is not always adhered to
in applied settings (Diekfuss & Raisbeck, in press; Durham, Van Vliet, Badger,
& Sackley, 2009; Porter, Ostrowski, Nolan, & Wu, 2010). For example, firearms
instructors at the Police Training Institute at the University of Illinois teach new
recruits to focus on maintaining a straight firing arm (internal focus verbal cue),
the trigger squeeze (internal focus verbal cue), and the front sights (external focus
verbal cue) when firing a handgun (Charles & Copay, 2003). Yet, providing multiple
verbal cues can impair performance and disrupt the natural fluidity of movement
(Wiese-Bjornstal & Weiss, 1992) and is inconsistent with the single verbal cue
recommendation made by Singer (1988) and the conciseness recommended by
Rink (2006). Attending to multiple cues seems to impair performance in a manner
similar to focusing on an internal focus. Specifically, an internal focus induces
a conscious control over learned motor movements, whereas an external focus
allows the body to self-organize and behave more reflexively (constrained-action
hypothesis; McNevin et al., 2003; Wulf, McNevin, et al., 2001; Wulf, Shea, & Park,
2001). However, no direct examination into the varying effects of single versus
multiple verbal cues and their relationship with attentional focus on motor perfor-
mance and learning has been conducted. Thus, varying the number of attentional
focus verbal cues (e.g., one versus three) could integrate findings from both the
attentional focus and sport pedagogy literature to identify optimal instruction for
motor performance and learning. This would provide further evidence to aid in the
application of laboratory-based findings.

JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

150  Raisbeck and Diekfuss

There is also a strong connection between attention, verbal cues, and informa-
tion processing for skill acquisition (Abernethy, 1993). Appropriately attending to
stimuli can aid in novice and expert selection of appropriate responses (Landin &
Macdonald, 1990). Similarly, an external focus promotes movement automaticity,
possibly by reducing attentional demands (Wulf, McNevin, et al., 2001) and reduc-
ing muscular activity (Zachry et al., 2005), which warrants further examination
into the resource demands exhibited from instruction that vary in the number of
verbal cues and attentional focus type. Integrating workload as a subjective mea-
sure provides insight into the cognitive differences between one verbal cue and
three verbal cues. Through the implementation of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration—Task Load Index (NASA-TLX; Hart & Staveland, 1988),
researchers have been able to better understand the relationship between atten-
tion, workload, and motor performance (Raisbeck & Diekfuss, 2015). To reduce
perceptions of workload, Raisbeck and Diekfuss (2015) suggested that attention
should be directed toward gross aspects of motor movement. Thus, researchers
that provide instruction that varies in duration directed toward gross (e.g., weight
lifting; Marchant, Greig, Bullough, & Hitchen, 2011) and fine motor movements
(e.g., piano playing; Duke, Cash, & Allen, 2011) may be unintentionally varying
the workload demands during the motor learning process.
Based on the evidence that an internal focus of attention can be detrimental
to performance and learning, it is important to examine not only instruction type
but also the number of verbal cues provided to determine if there are any workload
changes. This would narrow the gap between research and application. Therefore,
the primary purpose of this experiment was to determine if attentional focus type
and the number of attentional focus verbal cues differentially affected the acqui-
sition and learning of a virtual target-shooting task. A secondary purpose was to
implement a measure of workload throughout acquisition and learning to further
our understanding of the differing attentional resource demands elicited from our
manipulations. We hypothesized that participants would elicit superior performance
and report less workload across all phases when given external focus of atten-
tion instruction, compared to internal focus of attention instruction. We further
hypothesized that participants would elicit superior performance and report less
workload across all phases when given a single verbal cue, compared to multiple
verbal cues. We made no specific predictions for the attentional focus by verbal cue
number interaction as this combination of variables has not been investigated to
date in the literature. These hypotheses were investigated using the Portable Small
Arms Training Simulator—Law Enforcement Edition (PSATS-LE; Stafford, TX;
Diekfuss, Ward, & Raisbeck, 2016; Raisbeck & Diekfuss, 2015).

Method
Participants
Sixty-eight healthy participants (n = 26 males; n = 42 females; 24.0 ± 6.7 years;
89.7% right-hand dominant) volunteered to take part in the experiment. Participants
were naïve to the purpose of the experiment and did not have any formal weapons
training (e.g., law enforcement training). The institutional ethics committee approved
the project, and informed consent was obtained before commencing the experiment.

JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

 A Simulated Target-Shooting Experiment   151

Apparatus and Task

Participants used a modified Glock 17 handgun for all shooting tasks (see Figure
1A; see also Diekfuss et al., 2016; Raisbeck & Diekfuss, 2015). The handgun was
modified to emit an infrared laser beam and was used to fire at a projector screen
that depicted a simulated firing lane with two targets. Each target resembled a dart-
board with a bull’s-eye surrounded by four ellipses, each with a horizontal diameter
of 2.5 cm and a vertical diameter of 5 cm; each surrounding ellipsis increased its
horizontal and vertical diameter by another 2.5 cm and 5 cm, respectively. The
center of each target was positioned 145 cm from the ground. The PSATS-LE was
calibrated before each participant to maintain accuracy among the projected image,
infrared camera, and handgun. Participants stood 15 feet away from the projector
screen for all tasks, except the transfer test, which was 18 feet away.

Protocol
All participants completed the simulated target-shooting task using their nondomi-
nant arm (see Figure 1B). The nondominant arm was selected to make the task as
novel as possible and to remain congruent with other attentional focus studies that
required aiming (e.g., dart throwing; McKay & Wulf, 2012).
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: internal focus
with one verbal cue, internal focus with three verbal cues, external focus with
one verbal cue, and external focus with three verbal cues. Participants were

Figure 1 — Modified Glock 17 handgun equipped with an infrared laser beam used for
all shooting tasks (A). Participant holding the gun and ready to fire (B). Participants view
when firing at the projected targets (C). The scoring system used to calculate shooting
performance scores (D). The center bull’s-eye was worth five points with each surrounding
circle depreciating the shot value by 1 point.

JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

152  Raisbeck and Diekfuss

told to keep the gun at their side and to raise and fire the gun when two targets
appeared on the projector screen (see Figure 1C). The projected targets always
appeared on screen simultaneously and participants were instructed to fire at
the target corresponding with their nondominant arm first. For example, if a
participant was right-hand dominant, he or she would fire at the left target first
while using their left arm. Participants were told to fire two shots at each target,
lower the gun, and repeat the procedure six separate times, resulting in 24 total
shots (shooting block; i.e., two shots × two targets × six trials = 24 total shots
per trial). The shooting block was completed once at baseline and repeated nine
times throughout acquisition (24 shots × nine trial blocks = 216 total shots fired
during acquisition). One shooting block was again completed at two separate
retention phases (immediate [10 min], and delayed [three days]) that included a
transfer test from the farther distance.
Before the baseline shooting block, all participants were provided with a famil-
iarization period using the handgun to fire four practice shots. Based on pilot data,
each participant was allowed 8 s to fire all four shots. Then, before each acquisition
shooting block, each group received unique instruction respective of their randomly
assigned condition. Participants in the internal focus with one verbal cue were
instructed to “focus on keeping your hand steady.” Participants in the internal focus
with three verbal cues were instructed to “focus on keeping your hand, wrist, and
arm steady.” Participants in the external focus with one verbal cue were instructed
to “focus on keeping the gun steady.” And participants in the external focus with
three verbal cues were instructed to “focus on keeping the gun, gun barrel, and gun
stock steady.” No verbal cues (focus or number) were provided during baseline,
the retention phases, or transfer tests.

Dependent Variables
Shooting Performance. To assess shooting performance, a scoring system was
adapted from previous work that manipulated attentional focus during a virtual
target-shooting task (Diekfuss et al., 2016; Raisbeck & Diekfuss, 2015). Any shot
that landed within the bull’s-eye was worth five points, and each surrounding
circle depreciated in value by one point (also see Figure 1D). The total value of
all shots fired during each condition was summed to determine an overall shooting
performance score. A perfect score was 120 (24 shots × five points), whereas a
0 (24 shots × 0 points) was the lowest possible score.
Workload. To assess workload, the NASA-TLX was administered following
each shooting block. Specifically, the NASA-TLX was completed 14 times
(after baseline, after each of the 9 acquisition shooting blocks, and after each
retention and transfer test). This instrument has been used with success in
recent motor performance research (Diekfuss et al., 2016; Raisbeck & Diekfuss,
2015; Raisbeck, Diekfuss, Wyatt, & Shea, 2015) and requires individuals to
rate (0–20; low to high) their perceptions of the mental, physical, and temporal
demands of the task, in addition to effort prescribed, frustration experienced, and
a rating of their performance. Congruent with Raisbeck and Diekfuss (2015),
the total score on all six items were summed and divided by the number of sub-
scales, resulting in a score out of 20, with 20 representing the highest level of
overall workload.

JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

 A Simulated Target-Shooting Experiment   153

Data Analyses
First, baseline scores were transformed to Z-scores and outliers greater than ± 1.96
SD of the mean were removed (see Raisbeck, Regal, Diekfuss, Rhea, & Ward,
2015). Three participants met this criterion and were removed from the analyses.
Specifically, one participant was removed from each group, with the exception of
the external focus condition with three verbal cues condition, in which no outliers
were present. After removal of the outliers, there were no significant differences
at baseline for shooting performance or workload. Thus, separate 2 (attentional
focus) × 2 (verbal cue number) ANOVAs were conducted at immediate retention,
immediate transfer, delayed retention, and delayed transfer for the dependent
variables shooting performance and workload. Analyzing each of these phases in
separate ANOVAs is consistent with motor behavior research that has implemented
retention and transfer tests (Wulf, Chiviacowsky, Schiller, & Ávila, 2010). To
assess changes over the acquisition period, a 2 (focus of attention) × 2 (verbal cue
number) × 9 (shooting block) mixed ANOVA with shooting block as the repeated
measures factor was conducted for the dependent variables shooting performance
and workload. Bonferroni adjustments were used when appropriate and an alpha
level of p < .05 was set a priori. Only the statistics for the significant or otherwise
meaningful results are reported.

Results
Shooting Performance
There was a significant main effect for trial block, Greenhouse-Geisser adjusted,
F(2.23, 135.77) = 9.45, p < .05, partial η2 = .35. As seen in Figure 2, there were
significant improvements in shooting performance from trial block one to trial
blocks six, seven, eight, and nine; trial block two to trial block nine; and trial block
three to trial blocks eight and nine (all p < .05). However, we saw no differences
for our attentional focus and verbal cue number manipulations throughout acquisi-
tion (all p > .05). Interestingly, our manipulations were effective at the immediate
and delayed retention test time. Specifically, at immediate retention, we obtained
a significant main effect for verbal cue number, with those receiving one verbal
cue (M = 94.75, SD = 12.97) demonstrating significantly higher total scores than
those receiving three verbal cues (M = 86.73, SD = 17.16), F(1, 61) = 4.52, p <
.05, partial η2 = .07. Then, at delayed retention, there was a significant main effect
for attentional focus, with those receiving external focus of attention instruction
(M = 93.06, SD = 12.47) demonstrating significantly higher total scores than those
receiving internal focus of attention instruction (M = 85.15, SD = 16.51), F(1, 61)
= 4.87, p < .05, partial η2 = .07.

Workload
As seen in Figure 3, the only significant difference revealed from our workload
data was at delayed retention. Specifically, we observed a significant main effect
for attentional focus, with those receiving external focus of attention instruction
(M = 7.55, SD = 2.99) reporting significantly less workload at delayed retention

JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

Figure 2 — Shooting performance at baseline, across 9 trials of acquisition, after a short
(10 min) break and after a prolonged rest period (3 days). *Significant improvements from
trial block 1 to trial block 6, 7, 8, and 9 (all p < .05); trial block 2 to trial block 9 (p = .02);
and trial block 3 to trial block 8 and 9 (all p < .05). ^ Those receiving one cue performed
significantly better than those receiving three cues at immediate retention (p < .05). # Those
receiving external focus of attention instruction performed significantly better than those
receiving internal focus of attention instruction at delayed retention (p < .05).

Figure 3 — Workload at baseline, across 9 trials of acquisition, after a short (10 min) break
and after a prolonged rest period (3 days). *Those receiving external focus of attention
instruction reported significantly less workload at delayed retention than those receiving
internal focus of attention instruction (p < .05).

154 JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

 A Simulated Target-Shooting Experiment   155

than those receiving internal focus of attention instruction (M = 9.35, SD = 3.96),

F(1, 61) = 4.18, p < .05, partial η2 = .06.

Discussion
The importance of providing short, concise verbal cues for improving skilled
performance has been well established (Landin, 1994; Singer, 1978). Further, an
extensive body of literature exists showing the benefits of an external focus of atten-
tion, compared with an internal focus of attention for performance and learning
on both simple (McNevin et al., 2003; Wulf, McNevin, et al., 2001) and complex
tasks (Al-Abood et al., 2002; Wulf et al., 2002; Wulf & Su, 2007; Zachry et al.,
2005). To supplement the understanding of instruction on motor performance and
learning, we manipulated both the number of verbal cues and attentional focus
type throughout acquisition and integrated a psychometric tool (NASA-TLX) to
identify any changes in participants’ attentional demands. The primary purpose
of this experiment was to determine if attentional focus type and the number of
attentional focus verbal cues differentially affected the acquisition and learning
of a virtual target-shooting task. The secondary purpose of the experiment was to
implement a measure of workload throughout acquisition and learning to further
our understanding of the differing attentional resource demands elicited from our
manipulations.
We found that one attentional focus verbal cue was beneficial for immediate
retention. This is consistent with sport pedagogy literature suggesting that perform-
ers should focus on a single verbal cue to block out any other distractions (Singer,
1988). This is important as it shows that one verbal cue is more beneficial than the
multiple verbal cues typically provided in applied settings (e.g., pistol training;
Charles & Copay, 2003). Our finding at immediate retention suggests that a short
break may allow a performer time to reflect, and the novices in our experiment
may have benefited from the single verbal cue at this time. Interestingly, however,
we did not find a main effect for the number of verbal cues throughout acquisition
or at immediate transfer, delayed retention, or delayed transfer test. One possible
explanation is that performers across all conditions focused on a single cue, regard-
less of the specific number of cues provided by the researcher.
Unanticipated findings were also present with our attentional focus manipula-
tion. We did not find that an external focus resulted in better shooting performance
throughout acquisition, at immediate retention and transfer, or at delayed transfer.
While this is congruent with those who have found null effects for an external focus
(Emanuel, Jarus, & Bart, 2008; Perkins-Ceccato, Passmore, & Lee, 2003), it is a
common difficulty in these experiments to determine whether participants in fact
adopted the focus of attention they were assigned. Marchant, Clough, and Crawshaw
(2007) keenly noted that participants will inevitably use their own attentional focus
strategies from time to time, and we suspect that participants may have integrated
an external focus (the front and rear sights) to aim during practice, as evidenced
by the significant improvements throughout acquisition regardless of condition.
Incorporating the front and rear sights into the task could have minimized the det-
rimental effect often observed when performers are asked to focus internally. We
were consistent in that we did not provide any instruction related to the front or rear

JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

156  Raisbeck and Diekfuss

sights, but future studies using pistol shooting may want to incorporate question-
naires to gain a better understanding of the level of adherence to the attentional
manipulations used in target shooting.
Our delayed retention data, however, was congruent with others (e.g., An, Wulf,
& Kim, 2013; Lohse et al., 2010; Wulf et al., 1998) who have demonstrated the
beneficial effects of an external focus on motor learning. It is possible that after a
rest period, it was easier to recall the external focus instruction, which maximized
the benefits typically observed from an external focus. Further, we suspect that
participants may have “chunked” the number of verbal cues they received during
acquisition and performed in a manner typically seen when using an external
focus. Giving participants a 3-day period between the immediate and delayed
retention test may have allowed the performers to process the meaning associated
with the instruction, which allowed for easier recall and subsequently enhanced
performance at this time.
Enhanced recall of instruction after a 3-day rest period is supported by our
finding that an external focus of attention minimized perceptions of workload during
the delayed retention test. It was less cognitively demanding for participants to
retrieve and execute external focus of attention instruction following an extended
rest period. This information complements the findings from Wulf, McNevin, et al.
(2001), which demonstrated lower probe reaction times for participants performing
a balance task with an external rather than an internal focus. Wulf et al. suggested
that an external focus required less attentional demands, which is congruent with
our workload finding. Interestingly, however, we found no differences in workload
at immediate retention, immediate transfer, delayed transfer, or throughout acquisi-
tion, suggesting that performers’ perception of task difficulty was similar across
conditions at these times. We speculate that the NASA-TLX was not always sensitive
enough to capture the psychological differences elicited from the attentional focus
and number of verbal cues manipulation. It is also possible that the NASA-TLX
was administered too often, which may have contributed to participants reporting
similarly across the majority of test phases.
One limitation from this experiment, which could account for some of our
unanticipated findings, is the failure to include measures of shot consistency
and shot variability. Fischman (2015) keenly notes that using concentric rings to
measure motor performance and learning fails to account for variability in per-
formance. A solution to this problem would be to incorporate measures of radial
and bivariate error (see Hancock, Butler, & Fischman, 1995) to better understand
how our manipulations affected shooting performance. This provides a plausible
explanation for some of the null effects from our manipulations, as our scoring
system was not sensitive enough to truly decipher differences in shooting per-
formance. Fischman also notes the importance of including kinematic or kinetic
variables to better understand how a participant truly learns a skill. Accordingly,
we speculate that kinematic differences may have manifested if we measured
elbow or shoulder angles in accordance with other attentional focus and pistol
shooting research (Raisbeck, Suss, Diekfuss, Petushek, & Ward, 2015). Further,
since an external focus has been shown to reduce muscular activity during a dart-
throwing task relative to a baseline (Lohse et al., 2010), and decrease muscular
activity during a biceps curl relative to an internal focus (Vance, Wulf, Töllner,
McNevin, & Mercer, 2004), it is possible that the integration of measures that

JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

 A Simulated Target-Shooting Experiment   157

can assess movement economy would have produced differences throughout

acquisition or retention.
Despite the experiment’s limitations, our research makes two important contri-
butions. First, we demonstrate that one attentional focus verbal cue is superior for
the immediate retention of a novel target-shooting task. Second, we demonstrate
that an external focus is superior for the delayed retention of a novel target-shooting
task, as evidenced by our enhanced performance and lessened workload. The differ-
ences in performance at immediate and delayed retention has implications for target
shooting, and considerations should be made related to the timing of instruction.
For example, there may be a law enforcement scenario in which instruction can be
provided a few minutes before the gun may be fired (e.g., through a headset while
approaching a target) as opposed to a scenario in which instruction is provided
days before (e.g., during a training session). Our data suggests that minimizing the
number of verbal cues would aid in the former scenario, whereas external focus
instruction would be most beneficial for the latter scenario. The findings from this
experiment alongside the findings from Raisbeck and Diekfuss (2015) further the
literature and its understanding of the influence of attention on workload demands
during motor performance and learning. Future work should consider administering
the NASA-TLX in conjunction with other kinematic measures to better understand
the relationship between perceived workload and movement economy to facilitate
instructional techniques that maximize performance and learning.

References
Abernethy, B. (1993). Attention. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.),
Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 127–170). New York: Macmillan.
Al-Abood, S.A., Bennett, S.J., Hernandez, F.M., Ashford, D., & Davids, K. (2002). Effect of
verbal instructions and image size on visual search strategies in basketball free throw
shooting. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(3), 271–278. doi:10.1080/026404102317284817
An, J., Wulf, G., & Kim, S. (2013). Increased carry distance and X-factor stretch in golf
through an external focus of attention. Journal of Motor Learning and Development,
1, 2–11. doi:10.1123/jmld.1.1.2
Charles, M.T., & Copay, A.G. (2003). Acquisition of marksmanship and gun handling skills
through basic law enforcement training in an American police department. International
Journal of Police Science & Management, 5(1), 16–30. doi:10.1350/ijps.5.1.16.11245
Diekfuss, J.A., & Raisbeck, L.D. (2016).Focus of attention and instructional feedback from
NCAA division 1 collegiate coaches. Journal of Motor Learning and Development,
4(2), 262–273. doi:10.1123/jmld.2015-0026
Diekfuss, J.A., Ward, P., & Raisbeck, L.D. (2016). Attention, workload, and performance:
A dual-task simulated shooting study. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psy-
chology, 1–15. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1612197X.2015.1121508
Duke, R.A., Cash, C.D., & Allen, S.E. (2011). Focus of attention affects performance
of motor skills in music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 59(1), 44–55.
doi:10.1177/0022429410396093
Durham, K., Van Vliet, P.M., Badger, F., & Sackley, C. (2009). Use of information feedback
and attentional focus of feedback in treating the person with a hemiplegic arm. Phys-
iotherapy Research International, 14(2), 77–90. doi:10.1002/pri.431
Emanuel, M., Jarus, T., & Bart, O. (2008). Effect of focus of attention and age on motor
acquisition, retention, and transfer: A randomized trial. Physical Therapy, 88(2),
251–260. doi:10.2522/ptj.20060174

JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

158  Raisbeck and Diekfuss

Fischman, M.G. (2015). On the continuing problem of inappropriate learning measures:

Comment on Wulf et al.(2014) and Wulf et al.(2015). Human Movement Science, 42,
225–231. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2015.05.011
Hancock, G.R., Butler, M.S., & Fischman, M.G. (1995). On the problem of two-dimensional
error scores: Measures and analyses of accuracy, bias, and consistency. Journal of Motor
Behavior, 27(3), 241–250. doi:10.1080/00222895.1995.9941714
Hart, S.G., & Staveland, L.E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results
of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183. doi:10.1016/
S0166-4115(08)62386-9
Landin, D. (1994). The role of verbal cues in skill learning. Quest, 46(3), 299–313. doi:10.1
080/00336297.1994.10484128
Landin, D.K., Cutton, D.M., & Macdonald, G. (1991). Self-cueing the mechanics of the return
of serve in tennis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Alliance for
Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, San Francisco, CA.
Landin, D., & Macdonald, G. (1990). Improving the overheads of collegiate tennis players.
The Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 5, 135–146.
Lohse, K.R., Sherwood, D.E., & Healy, A.F. (2010). How changing the focus of attention
affects performance, kinematics, and electromyography in dart throwing. Human Move-
ment Science, 29(4), 542–555. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2010.05.001
Marchant, D.C., Clough, P.J., & Crawshaw, M. (2007). The effects of attentional focusing strate-
gies on novice dart throwing performance and their task experiences. International Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(3), 291–303. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2007.9671837
Marchant, D.C., Greig, M., Bullough, J., & Hitchen, D. (2011). Instructions to adopt an external
focus enhance muscular endurance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(3),
466–473. doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599779
Masser, L.S. (1993). Critical cues help first-grade students’ achievement in handstands and
forward rolls. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 301–312. doi:10.1123/
jtpe.12.3.301
McKay, B., & Wulf, G. (2012). A distal external focus enhances novice dart throwing perfor-
mance. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(2), 149–156. doi:1
0.1080/1612197X.2012.682356
McKenzie, T.L., Clark, E.K., & McKenzie, R. (1984). Instructional strategies: Influence on
teacher and student behavior. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3(2), 20–28.
McNevin, N.H., Shea, C.H., & Wulf, G. (2003). Increasing the distance of an external focus
of attention enhances learning. Psychological Research, 67(1), 22–29.
Perkins-Ceccato, N., Passmore, S.R., & Lee, T.D. (2003). Effects of focus of atten-
tion depend on golfers’ skill. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(8), 593–600.
doi:10.1080/0264041031000101980
Porter, J.M., Ostrowski, E.J., Nolan, R.P., & Wu, W.F. (2010). Standing long-jump performance
is enhanced when using an external focus of attention. Journal of Strength and Condition-
ing Research, 24(7), 1746–1750. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181df7fbf
Raisbeck, L.D., & Diekfuss, J.A. (2015). Fine and gross motor skills: The effects on skill-focused
dual-tasks. Human Movement Science, 43, 146–154. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2015.08.007
Raisbeck, L.D., Diekfuss, J.A., Wyatt, W., & Shea, J.B. (2015). Motor imagery, physical
practice, and memory: The effects on performance and workload. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 121(3), 691–705. doi:10.2466/23.25.PMS.121c23x6
Raisbeck, L.D., Regal, A., Diekfuss, J.A., Rhea, C.K., & Ward, P. (2015). Influence of
practice schedules and attention on skill development and retention. Human Movement
Science, 43, 100–106. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2015.07.004
Raisbeck, L.D., Suss, J., Diekfuss, J.A., Petushek, E., & Ward, P. (2015). Skill-based changes
in motor performance from attentional focus manipulations: A kinematic analysis.
Ergonomics, 59(7), 1–9. doi:10.1080/00140139.2015.1094578

JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

 A Simulated Target-Shooting Experiment   159

Rink, J. (2006). Teaching physical education for learning. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Singer, R.N. (1978). Motor skills and learning strategies. In H.F. O’Neil, Jr. (Ed.), Learning
strategies (pp. 79–106). New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-526650-
5.50009-5
Singer, R.N. (1988). Strategies and metastrategies in learning and performing self-paced
athletic skills. The Sport Psychologist, 2(1), 49–68. doi:10.1123/tsp.2.1.49
Vance, J., Wulf, G., Töllner, T., McNevin, N., & Mercer, J. (2004). EMG activity as a func-
tion of the performer’s focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(4), 450–459.
doi:10.3200/JMBR.36.4.450-459
Wiese-Bjornstal, D.M., & Weiss, M.R. (1992). Modeling effects on children’s form kine-
matics, performance outcome, and cognitive recognition of a sport skill: An integrated
perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63(1), 67–75. doi:10.1080/0
2701367.1992.10607558
Wulf, G. (2007). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 10 years of research.
E-Journal Bewegung und Training, 1(2-3), 1–11.
Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 15 years. Interna-
tional Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77–104. doi:10.1080/17509
84X.2012.723728
Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., Schiller, E., & Ávila, L.T.G. (2010). Frequent external focus
feedback enhances motor learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(190), 1–7. http://journal.
frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00190/full
Wulf, G., Höß, M., & Prinz, W. (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects of
internal versus external focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30(2), 169–179.
doi:10.1080/00222899809601334
Wulf, G., McConnel, N., Gärtner, M., & Schwarz, A. (2002). Enhancing the learning of sport
skills through external-focus feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34(2), 171–182.
doi:10.1080/00222890209601939
Wulf, G., McNevin, N., & Shea, C.H. (2001). The automaticity of complex motor skill
learning as a function of attentional focus. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Section A, 54(4), 1143–1154. doi:10.1080/713756012
Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Park, J-H. (2001). Attention and motor performance: Preferences for
and advantages of an external focus. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(4),
335–344. doi:10.1080/02701367.2001.10608970
Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Motor skill learning and performance: A
review of influential factors. Medical Education, 44(1), 75–84. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
2923.2009.03421.x
Wulf, G., & Su, J. (2007). An external focus of attention enhances golf shot accuracy in
beginners and experts. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(4), 384–389.
doi:10.1080/02701367.2007.10599436
Zachry, T., Wulf, G., Mercer, J., & Bezodis, N. (2005). Increased movement accuracy and
reduced EMG activity as the result of adopting an external focus of attention. Brain
Research Bulletin, 67(4), 304–309. doi:10.1016/j.brainresbull.2005.06.035
Ziegler, S.G. (1987). Effects of stimulus cueing on the acquisition of groundstrokes by
beginning tennis players. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20(4), 405–411.
doi:10.1901/jaba.1987.20-405

JMLD Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017

View publication stats