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.

Standing long jump is known as one of the important skills in the success of athletes in most sports. In addition, one of the most effective factors that can affect standing long jump distance and kinematics is the focus of attention used by the athlete. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the effect of internal, external, and holistic focus of attention instructions on standing long jump performance and kinematics. The participants were 30 novices (all males; mean age = 21.70 ± 2.21 years; mean height = 175.73 ± 6.09 cm; and mean weight = 73.76 ± 11.77 kg) who performed 12 standing long jumps in four focus of attention conditions. Internal focus, external focus, holistic focus, and control conditions were implemented in a counterbalanced order. Jump distance and maximum knee flexion angle before take-off were recorded in all trials. The results showed that in relation to the standing long jump performance, the distance was similar in external and holistic focus conditions, and both were superior to internal or control conditions. There was no difference between control and internal focus of attention conditions. The results related to movement kinematics, however, did not report a difference between the maximum flexion angles before take-off. This study replicates the benefits of external and holistic focus instructions for jump distance, but this difference was not a product of different maximum knee flexion angles. It is suggested that coaches implement external and/or holistic focus cues to maximize athlete performance in jumping tasks.

Deficient and constrained in asymmetric movements, indicating the high tendency of the CNS toward producing symmetric or similar movements (Swinnen, 2002; Swinnen, Dounskaia, & Duysens, 2002). This shows that bimanual skills have a different method of control from that of unimanual movements, especially when each part of the body simultaneously makes a different movement temporally and spatially (Vangheluwe, Suy, Wenderoth, & Swinnen, 2006). Regarding how bimanual movements are controlled by the CNS, there have been various theories in whose interpretation of these movements there are critical contradictions and differences. The intense tendency of the two hands toward producing similar movements in terms of time and space features in bimanual movements results in the theory that there is a single motor program for both hands (Schmidt & Lee, 1999). Generalized Motor Program (GMP) theory assumes that the motor representation is independent

There exist numerous factors that contribute to the amplification of errors and complexity in motor processes, among which variability and noise are particularly noteworthy. Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) has been proposed as a potential means of enhancing motor performance by modulating excitability in the motor cortex. This study aimed to examine the role of the concomitant administration of tRNS with training in enhancing the performance measures of movement time, noise, covariation, and tolerance in the acquisition of a perceptual-motor task. This study enlisted a cohort of 30 healthy male adults (mean age: 22.62 ± 3.83 years) who were randomly assigned to three distinct groups. The participants executed the specified motor task during three sequential phases, namely, the pre-test, intervention, and post-test phases. Statistical analyses showed that training with tRNS has a significant effect on noise cost, co-variation, and movement tolerance (p ≤ 0.05). In addition, tRNS improved the function of the sensorimotor wave (p ≤ 0.05). Moreover, the results indicate that tRNS elicited a significant reduction in both spatial error and movement execution time, (p ≤ 0.05). The study’s findings indicate that a mere three training sessions leveraging tRNS may suffice in diminishing the spatial error; nevertheless, a higher number of training sessions is required to alleviate the temporal error.

The psychological refractory period (PRP) effect occurs when two stimuli that require separate responses are presented sequentially, particularly with a short and variable time interval between them. Fatigue is a suboptimal psycho-physiological state that leads to changes in strategies. In recent years, numerous studies have investigated the effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on motor control. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of two tDCS methods, anodal and cathodal, on PRP in ten different conditions of stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) under non-fatigue and mental fatigue conditions. The participants involved 39 male university students aged 19 to 25 years. In the pre-test, they were assessed using the PRP measurement tool under both non-fatigue and mental fatigue conditions. The mental fatigue was induced by a 30-min Stroop task. The test consisted of two stimuli with different SOAs (50, 75, 100, 150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1200, and 1500 ms). The first was a visual stimulus with three choices (letters A, B, and C). After a random SOA, the second stimulus, a visual stimulus with three choices (colors red, yellow, and blue), was presented. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to the anodal, cathodal, and sham stimulation groups and underwent four consecutive sessions of tDCS stimulation. In the anodal and cathodal stimulation groups, 20 min of tDCS stimulation were applied to the PLPFC area in each session, while in the sham group, the stimulation was artificially applied. All participants were assessed using the same measurement tools as in the pre-test phase, in a post-test phase one day after the last stimulation session, and in a follow-up phase four days after that. Inferential statistics include mixed ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, independent, and dependent t-tests. The findings indicated that the response time to the second stimulus was longer at lower SOAs. However, there was no significant difference between the groups in this regard. Additionally, there was no significant difference in response time to the second stimulus between the fatigue and non-fatigue conditions, or between the groups. Therefore, tDCS had no significant effect. There was a significant difference between mental fatigue and non-fatigue conditions in the psychological refractory period. Moreover, at lower SOAs, the PRP was longer than at higher SOAs. In conditions of fatigue, the active stimulation groups (anodal and cathodal) performed better than the sham stimulation group at higher SOAs. Considering the difference in response to both stimuli at different SOAs, some central aspects of the response can be simultaneously parallel. Fatigue also affects parallel processing. This study supports the response integration phenomenon in PRP, which predicts that there will be an increase in response time to the first stimulus as the interval between the presentation of the two stimuli increases. This finding contradicts the bottleneck model. In this study, the effectiveness of cathodal and anodal tDCS on response time to the second stimulus and PRP was found to be very small.