Background and Context
In many sports including track sprints, the efficiency of the start determines the final performance. An athlete is required to respond promptly to the ‘go’ sign, synchronize the movements of arms and legs, and engender adequate forces to exit the starting block and attain the maximum speed within the shortest time (Schmidt & Lee, 2011). Therefore, knowledge of the optimal conditions required to reach this goal is of utmost importance. Hence, the context of this research is in the field of sports and kinesiology. The findings provided herein are beneficial to different professionals, including sports physiologists and occupational therapists. The purpose of this literature review is to determine how attention focus affects information processing, anticipation time, and reaction time (premotor and motor). Any interactions among the three factors are also described.
Research Problem Statement
Attaining optimal performance is the goal of any sports activity. Attentional focus refers to the direction of concentration towards various sources of information. It is a crucial factor that has demonstrated its value in motor learning and performance. There are two distinct classes of the attentional focus: internal and external. An external attentional focus refers to the outcomes of the athlete’s actions on the surroundings while an internal attentional focus denotes the athlete’s body movements. Therefore, there is a need to understand the precise impact of attentional focus on various aspects of motor learning and performance.
Research Purpose
The purpose of this research is to determine the effect of attention focus on information processing, anticipation time, and premotor and motor reaction times.
Research Questions
- What is the effect of attention focus on information processing?
- What is the effect of attention focus on anticipation time?
- What is the effect of attention focus on premotor and motor reaction times?
Justification
Apart from biomechanical and biological factors that influence the efficacy of the sprint start performance, the effectiveness of information development concerned with the preparation and implementation of movement is also vital to the success of tasks requiring quick reactions to signals and the synchronization of several effectors (Ille, Selin, Do, & Thon, 2013). Given the importance of attentional focus in motor learning and performance, it is necessary to look into its contribution to the biomechanical and biological aspects of sprint start performance. Hence, this review aims at clarifying these aspects.
Attention Focus and Information Processing
The study of motor behavior and control assumes that humans are capable of processing information (Schmidt & Lee, 2011). Information originates from sensory inputs, is stored and processed for diverse purposes such as motion (Anson, 1989). The significance of information processing in the production of movement has sparked an interest in the understanding of factors that influence the efficiency of information processing with the sole purpose of augmenting the efficacy of motor control.
Information processing has been studied extensively through reaction time. A classical experiment involving reaction time was conducted by Donders (Yang, Bender, & Raz, 2015). In this study, the time taken for a subject to finish a simple motor task was measured and separated into the time needed to execute different operations in the task using a subtractive approach. This experimental procedure is the basis of contemporary analysis of information processing.
As a result, various models have been used to examine information processing. Nonetheless, these models have three components in common: identification of the stimulus, selection of response, and response programming (Davranche, Burle, Audiffren, & Hasbroucq, 2005). The identification of the stimulus takes place as soon as the stimulus is produced. This phase can further be divided into two specific stages of stimulus detection and pattern recognition. Stimulus detection entails the preliminary triggering of nerves where the stimulus is situated and conveying the resultant electrical signal to the central nervous system (CNS). On the other hand, pattern identification encompasses a blend of deliberate and intuitive processing in the CNS, which causes the stimulation of the pertinent associative memory (Schmidt & Lee, 2011). The strength of the stimulus, as well as the uniqueness of the task, have a substantial impact on the time taken during this processing stage.
The CNS receives and evaluates the signal, thereby leading to the second stage. In the response selection stage, the subject decides the most apposite rejoinder to a given stimulus. The time taken to arrive at a specific response is determined by various aspects such as the sum of potential reactions to the stimulus, which is referred to as the stimulus-response (S-R) pairings. A predictable association exists between the reaction time and S-R pairings, which has led to the development of Hick’s Law (Logan, Ulrich, & Lindsey, 2016). Hick’s Law states that reaction time increases by 150 ms for every twofold increase in S-R pairs (Kendall, 2018). The response selection time is also affected by the congruence of the stimulus and response, which is the spontaneity of the response to a stimulus. Mixing the stimuli and responses can increase the reaction time, leading to the Simon Effect (Theeuwes, Liefooghe, & De Houwer, 2014).
The last stage of the information processing exemplar is response programming. This step happens following the sensing and recognition of sensory inputs and selection of the right response. It involves the execution of pertinent motor actions to attain the anticipated outcome. The time needed for this phase is influenced by a number of factors. The reaction time rises with an increase in the intricacy of movements (Anson, 1982; Christina & Rose, 1985; Kendall, 2018). However, precise attributes of movement complexity are reported to affect the reaction time. They include the sum of moving parts, the need for movement precision, and the interval of the movement. Movement complexity calls for the synchronization of more neuromotor actions, which subsequently elongates the time needed for neurologic arrangement thus leading to a longer reaction time (Christina & Rose, 1985).
Attention Focus and Anticipation Time
Elite-level achievements in sports are attained through expertise, which is directly related to the capacity to make precise decisions. Thus, decision-making is complicated by many germane prompts and interactions, time pressure, and numerous indirect cause-and-effect relationships (Afonso, Garganta, & Mesquita, 2012). Three main constituents that affect decision-making are attention, anticipation, and memory. A strong relationship exists between the precision of decision-making and the time needed to execute it, which is vital in sports because a high degree of precision is required with a high response speed. A unique feature in sports is that vagueness pervades decision-making and important decisions are necessary despite having incomplete information. Hypothetically, anticipation strategies are beneficial to sports, particularly in fast-paced scenarios (Afonso et al., 2012). However, these tactics can only be taken on board if there is a correct direction towards the correct indicators that provide the athlete with pertinent information early enough and allow them to use probabilistic relationships to foretell the consequences of an action.
Anticipating action consequences is a fundamental progression, which can be visualized in an S-R paradigm. There is enough proof that implementing voluntary actions involves the expectation of action effects. The anticipated effect denotes the preferred consequences of an action. Early models of motor regulation regarded the expectation of the upshot as a precondition to the completion of the action. First, movements that are done arbitrarily are linked to their environmental upshots. The instigation of the upshots in memory causes the reactivation of the motions that result in these effects. Modern arguments propose that activities are signified in the mind by their sensory outcomes (Benedict II, 2016). However, other theoretical explanations contend that the anticipation of upshots is a component of the control procedures needed to devise and implement the action. For instance, the Schema Theory presumes that the effects of an action are anticipated to permit an internal assessment to gauge whether the prearranged action will result in the expected outcome and to keep an eye on the implementation of the action by contrasting the expected outcomes with the observed effects (Benedict II, 2016). Likewise, forward models elucidate the anticipation of outcomes for a proposed action. Therefore, the anticipation of an effect is a vital constituent for the recognition and rectification of errors.
Theoretically, short anticipation times and acting before the required time lowers success rates and accuracy in motor reactions (Harrison & Ziessler, 2016). Conversely, waiting longer and acquiring as much information as possible leads to success. These observations indicate the importance of anticipation time. However, in real-life settings, the situation is complicated because as much as a prolonged wait can be beneficial in gathering adequate facts and subsequently increasing the likelihood of successful actions, it can also render the actual action ineffective by delaying it. Thus, a protracted wait anticipation may be accurate but lead to late, unsuccessful actions.
Memory plays an important role in the direction of attention and implementation of anticipatory strategies. Better decisions can be made based on the capacity to relate recent information with previously stored data in the memory, thereby leading to increasingly more complex knowledge structures. It is proposed that an enhanced organization of information by clustering it in logical sets that have practical meaning hastens the recovery of pertinent data from the memory via an efficient search.
Even though there is adequate theoretical knowledge regarding the various roles of effect instructions in the selection, formulation, and implementation of motor functions, empirical knowledge of the same is limited. Experiments using diverse paradigms have established that effect instructions are instigated during the planning stage. However, the precise nature of activation and their role in preparing for action is still under review. The ideomotor principle, which is a two-step model, was used to develop an early paradigm that demonstrated the contribution of effect anticipation in the regulation of motor actions. An experiment conducted by Elsner and Hommel (2001) required the subjects to perform two key presses. A distinct tone came after each key-press, which was assumed to create response-effect associations. Thereafter, the tones were used as imperative stimuli in the second phase. It was noted that the subjects reacted faster to stimuli that were the previous effects of the rejoinders. This observation was taken as evidence to support the ideomotor principle by presuming that specific effects are likely to elicit rejoinders that generate these effects.
Abdollahipour and Psotta (2017) tested the consequences of attentional focus on interceptive motor skills. It is worth noting that interceptive motor skills such as catching rely heavily on the processing of visual information, the synchronization of movement dexterities, and the anticipation of the contact time with an object. Children aged between 8 and 9 years were used as the study participants. The subjects were expected to grab hold of tennis balls in the frontal plane under three conditions: external focus, internal focus, and control (no specific instructions). A total of 10 trials was performed for each condition. In the external focus trials, the children were asked to concentrate on the ball, whereas the internal focus condition entailed paying attention to the hands. There was a significant difference in the catching performance between the external focus and internal focus. However, the two conditions did not differ significantly from the control (Abdollahipour & Psotta, 2017). These findings suggested that the external focus was more beneficial than the internal focus in the motor performance of interceptive skills in children. Given the influence of anticipation on interceptive skills, it can be presumed that external attentional focus is associated with effective anticipation and short reaction times, which enabled the children to catch the balls promptly.
In a separate experiment, Ziessler, Nattkemper, and Vogt (2012) examined how the consistency between Go-stimuli and the rejoinder upshots influenced reaction times. The study subjects were requested to formulate a response following the appearance of an important stimulus. However, they were expected to hold back the rejoinder pending the appearance of a Go-stimulus. There was a major reduction in the reaction times with increasing stimulus onset asynchronies, which implied that the subjects made use of the time to formulate appropriate responses. The reaction time trailing the Go-stimulus was prompted by the association between the stimulus and the impetus that came after the implementation of the rejoinder as a response effect. Shorter reaction times were seen when the Go-stimulus matched the comeback reaction as opposed to when the response outcome was incompatible with the stimulus (Harrison & Ziessler, 2016).
Overall, the interactive facts supported the hypothesis that effect programs were stimulated during the formulation of the rejoinders. The evaluation of the event-related potentials gave more insight into the neural developments linked with the expectation of the response upshots. The findings corroborated the belief that anticipating an effect played a role in the formulation of motor rejoinders at the perceptual, intellectual, and motor levels. Therefore, it can be presumed that looking forward of response outcomes is not associated with sensory attenuation alone. Depictions of the upshots are initiated in memory and availed for the intellectual progressions of response formulation.
Attention Focus and Reaction Time
Numerous studies have shown that focusing attention on movement outcomes enhances performance and learning as opposed to internal focus conditions (Ille et al., 2013). However, it has also been reported that the reaction time can be affected by the directives given to subjects regarding the course of attention to the implementation of the response (motor set) or to the impetus (sensory set) (Ille et al., 2013). Ille et al. (2013) hypothesized that the progressive impact of the external focus of attention would be noted in the three stages of a race start in skilled and inexperienced athletes. The external focus led to a time saving of 0.09 seconds out of which 0.06 seconds were attributed to the running time and 0.03 seconds to the reaction time. The findings supported assertions that an external focus was influential at the pre-movement time in the initial phase of learning a force-generation task. Attentional focus affected the formulation of movement as well as its implementation.
This effect could be explained by a number of factors that are known to shape reaction time. First, ambiguity concerning the response prolongs the reaction time because it advances the informational processing phase of the response-selection stage. As reported earlier, an increase in response convolution prolongs the reaction time due to more sub-constituents that require formulation and instigation. It is presumed that this factor can be affected by attentional focus. The nodal-point hypothesis proposes that an internal focus of attention breaks up the sensorimotor chain in sub-portions, which results in the formulation of two sub-parts of the action as opposed to a whole functional element. This effect is more pronounced in the motor than the premotor reaction time (Christina & Rose, 1985). It was suggested that subjects tried to organize their movement consciously in an internal focus, whereas these movements occurred spontaneously in the external focus. Planned responses are more resource-intensive and slower than spontaneous ones, which explains the faster reaction times in the external focus. Finally, it was suggested that longer reaction times ensued when attention was aligned with the implementation of the response (motor set) in contrast with alignment with the sensory set (impetus). It was also suggested that urging the participant to concentrate on details of response implementation delays response formulation and extends the reaction time. Therefore, an internal focus of control impels subjects to give more attention to the completion of the impending movements, thus attenuating their capacity to respond to the gesture.
Interactions
Information originates from sensory inputs, is stored and processed for diverse numerous functions. The impact of attentional focus on information processing, anticipation time, and reaction time (premotor and motor) shows that all three processes are interrelated. External attentional focus correlates with faster information processing, longer anticipation times, and shorter motor reaction times.
Brain Effect versus Muscle Recruitment
The valuable upshots of an external focus on motor acquisition and functioning have been reproduced for vigorous balance undertakings. The observed outcomes are deciphered within the structure of the constrained-action hypothesis, which asserts that movements arise from involuntary self-organized processes controlled by the objective of the task. Consequently, an external focus of attention expediates this modus operandi while an internal focus engrosses the contestant in a deliberate ‘unnatural’ style of motion control that can interfere with automatic processes. This construal is backed by proof that an external focus encourages automatic motion control as shown by shorter reaction times to audio stimuli in the course of a balancing task in the external focus state in contrast with the internal focus condition. Since the CNS is responsible for involuntary actions, it can be deduced that brain effects are faster than muscle recruitment.
Gap
Observations regarding the impact of information processing and reaction time and the impact of attentional focus on reaction time suggest that there is a direct link between attentional focus and information processing. However, the nature of the precise link is unknown. Hence, there is a need to establish the exact link between attentional focus and information processing.
Conclusion
This review shows that attentional focus affects various performance parameters, including information processing, anticipation time, and reaction times. An increase in anticipation time is associated with increased attentional focus and better performance outcomes. However, it has been demonstrated that the external attentional focus has a beneficial effect on motor reaction times as opposed to an internal attentional focus.
References
Abdollahipour, R., & Psotta, R. (2017). Is an external focus of attention more beneficial than an internal focus to ball catching in children? Kinesiology: International Journal of Fundamental and Applied Kinesiology, 49(2), 19-20.
Afonso, J., Garganta, J., & Mesquita, I. (2012). Decision-making in sports: The role of attention, anticipation and memory. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria & Desempenho Humano, 14(5), 592-601.
Anson, J. G. (1982). Memory drum theory: Alternative tests and explanations for the complexity effects on simple reaction time. Journal of Motor Behavior, 14(3), 228-246.
Anson, J. G. (1989). Effects of moment of inertia on simple reaction time. Journal of Motor Behavior, 21(1), 60-71.
Benedict II, R. J. (2016). Effects of foreperiod regularity and muscle size on fractionated reaction time. Web.
Christina, R. W., & Rose, D. J. (1985). Premotor and motor reaction time as a function of response complexity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56(4), 306-315.
Davranche, K., Burle, B., Audiffren, M., & Hasbroucq, T. (2005). Information processing during physical exercise: A chronometric and electromyographic study. Experimental Brain Research, 165(4), 532-540.
Elsner, B., & Hommel, B. (2001). Effect anticipation and action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(1), 229-240.
Harrison, N. R., & Ziessler, M. (2016). Effect anticipation affects perceptual, cognitive, and motor phases of response preparation: Evidence from an event-related potential (ERP) study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 5. Web.
Ille, A., Selin, I., Do, M. C., & Thon, B. (2013). Attentional focus effects on sprint start performance as a function of skill level. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(15), 1705-1712.
Kendall, B. J. (2018). The effects of acute exercise on postural control, information processing, motor skill acquisition, and executive function (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University
Logan, G. D., Ulrich, J. E., & Lindsey, D. R. (2016). Different (key) strokes for different folks: How standard and nonstandard typists balance Fitts’ law and Hick’s law. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(12), 2084-2102.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2011). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis (5th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Theeuwes, M., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Eliminating the Simon effect by instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1470-1480.
Yang, Y., Bender, A. R., & Raz, N. (2015). Age related differences in reaction time components and diffusion properties of normal-appearing white matter in healthy adults. Neuropsychologia, 66, 246-258.
Ziessler M., Nattkemper D., Vogt S. (2012). The activation of effect codes in response preparation: New evidence from an indirect priming paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 585. Web.