External focus (attention directed to an intended effect) has been shown to improve motor performance compared to internal focus (attention directed to body movements). Recently, holistic attention (attention directed to the overall feeling) has been discussed as an effective alternative. We hypothesized that a less specific cue (e.g. holistic attention) may be more effective than an external focus in experienced individuals. Therefore, the present study examined the effect of external focus, internal focus, and holistic attention on 14 experienced children-athletes ( M_age, 14.35 ± 1.98 years; M_height, 171.28 ± 9.53 cm; M_weight, 58.28 ± 10.28 kg) and 14 novice children ( M_age, 14.21 ± 1.92 years; M_height, 170.92 ± 12.40 cm; M_weight, 62.14 ± 15.62 kg). Participants completed a 16-meter front crawl swimming task with assigned instructions for three trials per condition. The results showed main effects of skill level ( p < 0.001), condition ( p = 0.006), and the skill level/condition interaction ( p = 0.003). Post hoc tests revealed that external focus was superior to internal focus ( p < 0.001), with no difference between holistic attention and internal focus ( p = 0.158) or holistic attention and external focus ( p = 0.05) in the experienced athletes, while none of the conditions were different in novices. The benefits of attentional focus may be influenced by the level of experience.

O presente estudo investigou se a aprendizagem motora de crianças pode ser beneficiada pelo "feedback" (conhecimento de resultados -CR) fornecido após tentativas relativamente boas de prática, ao invés de após tentativas ruins. A tarefa requeriu que os participantes arremessassem saquinhos de feijão em um alvo circular fixo, posicionado no chão, a uma distância de 3 m. Vinte e oito crianças do ensino fundamental (idade média: 10,6 anos) participaram deste experimento. A fase de prática consistiu de 10 blocos de seis tentativas. Após cada bloco de tentativas, um grupo (KR "good") recebeu CR relacionado aos três arremessos mais precisos, enquanto ao outro grupo (KR "poor") foi fornecido CR relacionado aos três arremessos menos precisos. Os participantes não foram informados sobre as tentativas nas quais o "feedback" seria fornecido. Imediatamente após a fase de prática, os participantes preencheram o questionário de motivação intrínseca. Um dia após a fase de prática, foi conduzido um teste de retenção composto por 10 tentativas, sem CR. Os resultados demonstraram que a aprendizagem foi melhorada através do fornecimento de CR após as boas tentativas de prática. Ainda, os resultados do questionário revelaram que a motivação intrínseca dos aprendizes foi aumentada pelo "feedback" positivo. Os presentes achados adicionam evidências de que os efeitos motivacionais do "feedback" possuem um impacto direto sobre a aprendizagem.

A large number of previous studies have examined how different neurofeedback-based techniques may influence motor learning. However, only a few studies attempted to compare the effects of these different techniques on motor learning. Therefore, the present study attempts to examine the effects of neurofeedback training on motor learning in novice golfers, using three protocols, namely enhanced sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) at Cz, suppressed alpha waves at Fz, and suppressed mu waves at Cz. The participants were 64 adults (32 females; mean age = 22.31 ± 2.25 years). The study consisted of a pretest stage (day 1), intervention (6 sessions, over two weeks, 3 sessions per week), short-term retention (one day after intervention), and long-term retention (two weeks after intervention); in the pretest and short-term and long-term retention, motor performance for golf putting (12 trials) as well as amplitudes of SMR wave at Cz, alpha at Fz, and Mu at Cz were recorded. During each intervention session, the participants in three neurofeedback groups and a sham group first performed neurofeedback training (enhanced SMR at Cz, suppressed alpha at Fz, and suppressed Mu at Cz) for 20 min. Then, the participants in all groups performed three blocks of 12 trials consisting of golf putting training. The results indicated no difference between the sham and the experimental groups in the acquisition stage, as individuals in all groups experienced similar improvement in putting accuracy. However, in the short-term retention, all the three neurofeedback groups outperformed the sham group, although in the long-term retention, only the SMR group and the Alpha group showed a better performance than the sham group while the Mu group did not exhibit a notably better performance than the sham group. Our results also showed significant variations in the amplitudes of the SMR, alpha, and mu waves depending on the neurofeedback intervention provided, while no significant variation was observed in the sham group. Based on these results, it is recommended that coaches should make further use of enhanced SMR at Cz or suppressed alpha at Fz as their neurofeedback interventions to facilitate longer-term motor learning in golfers.

A major concern voiced by motor behavior scientists is to find useful practice techniques that can be effective in improving motor learning and performance. Neurofeedback and self-controlled practice are among the techniques that have recently drawn attention from specialists in this area. The present study examined the additive and individual effects of sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) neurofeedback as well as self-controlled practice on motor learning and performance in novice golfers. In this semi-empirical study, forty adults (20 females, Mean_age = 26.10, SD = 5.56 years) were conveniently selected and randomly assigned to four groups: (1) neurofeedback/self-controlled practice, (2) neurofeedback/yoked practice, (3) sham/self-controlled practice, and (4) sham/yoked practice. The participants performed golf putting task in four stages, namely pretest (12 trials), intervention (one day after pretest; 6 sessions, 36 trails each), post-test (one day after intervention; 12 trials), and follow-up (two weeks after interventions; 12 trials). In addition, the participants had their EEG (SMR wave in Cz point) recorded during pretest, post-test, and follow-up. The results indicated that, although no additive effect was observed for the two practices during different stages of the experiment (p > 0.05), in acquisition and post-test stages, SMR neurofeedback and self-controlled practice independently facilitated golf putting (p ≤ 0.05). However, in the follow-up test, only the neurofeedback practice maintained its positive effects (p ≤ 0.05). The results also showed that participation in SMR neurofeedback practice can enhance the power of the SMR wave (p ≤ 0.05), regardless of the type of the self-controlled practice used. In sum, the two practice techniques seem to be independently effective in facilitating motor learning in instructional settings, particularly for golfers.