Abstract
Zusammenfassung. Der vorliegende Beitrag widmet sich der in den letzten Jahren häufig bearbeiteten Frage, wie motorische Lernprozesse durch die Lenkung der Aufmerksamkeit unterstützt werden können. Dabei werden zunächst im Überblick die wesentlichen Ergebnisse vorliegender Arbeiten dargestellt. Es zeigt sich zu Beginn des Lernprozesses ein Vorteil einer Fokussierung auf die mit der Bewegung verbundenen Effekte außerhalb des Körpers im Vergleich zu einer Fokussierung auf die Bewegungsausführung. Eine kritische Betrachtung der zur Erklärung der Befunde häufig angeführten “Constrained-Action”-Hypothese (Wulf, McNevin & Shea, 2001) ergibt, dass diese keine befriedigende Antwort auf die Frage liefert, wie der Lernprozess durch entsprechende Aufmerksamkeitslenkungen gefördert wird. Das zentrale Ziel des Beitrages besteht in der Entwicklung eines theoretischen Rahmens, der die Einordnung der vorliegenden Ergebnisse erlaubt, aus lerntheoretischer Sicht eine Erklärung der Befunde ermöglicht und aus dem sich Forschungsperspektiven ableiten lassen. Aus den vorgenommenen Betrachtungen lässt sich die Hypothese ableiten, dass die Effektivität des genutzten Aufmerksamkeitsfokus sowohl von den Aufgabenanforderungen als auch dem Zeitpunkt im Lernprozess abhängig ist. Daraus ergibt sich eine mögliche Erklärung der vorliegenden Befunde, da die Hervorhebung visueller Informationen über raum-zeitliche Merkmale zu Beginn des Lernprozesses bei vielen Fertigkeiten besonders geeignet für deren Erwerb scheint. Abschließend werden offene Fragen und Forschungsperspektiven aufgezeigt.
Abstract. The present article addresses a frequently discussed issue in recent years: How can the focus of attention support motor-learning processes? A general review of research on this topic reveals that during the initial phase of the learning process, it is more advantageous to focus on the effect outside the body brought about by a particular movement than on the execution of this movement itself. The ”constrained action” hypothesis (Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001) is frequently proposed to explain these findings. However, a detailed examination of this hypothesis reveals that although it may explain the aspects of motor control, it provides no information on the influence of attention on the motor learning process. The core objective of this article is to develop a theoretical framework that will allow an integration of existing results, will explain these results from a motor-learning perspective, and can be used to derive perspectives for future research. This leads to the formulation of a hypothesis proposing that the effectiveness of a focus of attention depends on both the task objectives and the point in time within the learning process. This reveals the benefits of an external focus of attention, because it accentuates visual information about the spatiotemporal properties of the task. In many tasks, learning these properties appears to be important at an early stage in motor learning. The review concludes with a discussion of open questions and potential research perspectives.
References
Bapi, R. S. , Doya, K. , Harner, A. M. (2000). Evidence for effector independent and dependent representations and their differential time course of acquisition during motor sequence learning. Experimental Brain Research, 132, 149– 162Bapi, R. S. , Miyapuram, K. P. , Graydon, F. X. , Doya, K. (2006). fMRI investigation of cortical and subcortical networks in the learning of abstract and effector-specific representations of motor sequences. NeuroImage, 32, 714– 727Beilock, S. L. , Carr, T. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701– 725Beilock, S. L. , Carr, T. H. , MacMahon, C. , Starkes, J. L. (2002). When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 6– 16Black, C. (2004). Internal focus of attention is superior to external focus when training is extended to several weeks. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, S35–Curran, T. , Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 189– 202Ehrlenspiel, F. (2001). Paralysis by Analysis? A functional framework for the effects of attentional focus on the control of motor skills. European Journal of Sport Science, 1 (5), 1– 11Elsner, B. , Hommel, B. (2004). Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning. Psychological Research, 68, 138– 154Fitts, P. M. , Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance . Belmont, CA: Brooks & ColeGray, R. (2004). Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: Expertise differences, choking, and slumps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 42– 54Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73– 99Hikosaka, O. , Nakahara, H. , Rand, M. K. , Sakai, K. , Xiaofeng, L. , Nakamura, K. et al (1999). Parallel neuralnetworks for learning sequential procedures. Trends in Neurosciences, 22, 464– 471Hikosaka, O. , Nakamura, K. , Sakai, K. , Nakahara, H. (2002). Central mechanisms of motor skill learning. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 12, 217– 222Hoffmann, J. (1993a). Vorhersage und Erkenntnis . Göttingen: HogrefeHoffmann, J. (1993b). Aufmerksamkeit, Automatisierung und antizipative Verhaltenssteuerung. In R. Daugs & K. Blischke (Hrsg.), Aufmerksamkeit und Automatisierung in der Sportmotorik (S. 97-120). St. Augustin: AcademiaHommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. . The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546– 571Hommel, B. , Müsseler, J. , Aschersleben, G. , Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849– 937Hossner, E.-J. (2004). Bewegende Ereignisse . Schorndorf: HofmannHossner, E.-J. , Künzell, S. (2003). Motorisches Lernen. In H. Mechling & J. Munzert (Hrsg.), Handbuch Bewegungswissenschaft - Bewegungslehre (S. 131-153). Schorndorf: HofmannJames, W. (1891). Principles of Psychology I . London: MacmillanKunde, W. (2004). Response priming by supraliminal and subliminal action effects. Psychological Research, 68, 91– 96Kunde, W. (2006). Antezedente Effektrepräsentationen in der Verhaltenssteuerung. Psychologische Rundschau, 57, 34– 42Kunde, W. , Weigelt, M. (2005). Goal congruency in bimanual object manipulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 145– 156Kunde, W. , Koch, I. , Hoffmann, J. (2004). Anticipated action effects affect the selection, initiation, and execution of actions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 87– 106Landers, M. , Wulf, G. , Wallmann, H. , Guadagnoli, M. A. (2005). An external focus of attention attenuates balance impairment in Parkinson's disease. Physiotherapy, 91, 152– 185Loosch, E. (1997). Variabilität - Phänomen und Prinzip menschlicher Bewegung. Sportwissenschaft, 27, 294– 309Magill, R. A. (2004). Motor Learning and Control. Concepts and Applications . (7th ed.)Dubuque, IO: BrownMcNevin, M. H. , Shea, C. H. , Wulf, G. (2003). Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention enhances learning. Psychological Research, 67, 22– 29Müller, H. (2001). Ausführungsvariabilität und Ergebniskonstanz . Lengerich: PabstMüller, H. , Blischke, K. im Druck Motorisches Lernen. In W. Schlicht & B. Strauß (Hrsg.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Themenbereich D Praxisgebiete, Serie V Sportpsychologie, Band 1: Grundlagen der Sportpsychologie. Göttingen: HogrefeNewell, K. M. , Slifkin, A. B. (1998). The nature of movement variability. In J. P. Piek (Ed.), Motor behavior and human skill (pp. 143-160). Champaign, IL: Human KineticsPark, J.-H. , Shea, C. H. (2003). Effect of practice oneffector independence. Journal of Motor Behavior, 35, 33– 40Park, J.-H. , Shea, C. H. , McNevin, N. , Wulf, G. (2000). Attentional focus and the control of dynamic balance. Supplement to Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, S85–Perkins-Ceccato, N. , Passmore, S. R. , Lee, T. D. (2003). Effects of focus of attention depend on golfers' skill. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 593– 600Poolton, J. M. , Maxwell, J. P. , Masters, R. S. W. , Raab, M. (2006). Benefits of an external focus of attention: Common coding or conscious processing. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 89– 99Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129– 154Schmidt, R. A. (1982). Motor control and learning. A behavioral emphasis . Champaign, IL: Human KineticsSchneider, W. , Fisk, A. D. (1983). Attention theory and mechanisms for skilled performance. In R. A. Magill (Ed.), Memory and control of action (pp. 119-143). Amsterdam: North-HollandShea, C. H. , Wulf, G. (1999). Enhancing motor learning through external-focus instructions and feedback. Human Movement Science, 18, 553– 571Stock, A. , Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68, 176– 188Stöcker, C. , Hoffmann, J. (2004). The ideomotor principle and motor sequence acquisition: Tone effects facilitate movement chunking. Psychological Research, 68, 126– 137Vance, J. , Wulf, G. , Töllner, T. , McNevin, N. H. , Mercer, J. (2004). EMG activity as a function of the performer's focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36, 450– 459Verwey, W. B. , Clegg, B. A. (2005). Effector dependent sequence learning in the serial RT task. Psychological Research, 69, 242– 251Wulf, G. (2007). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 10 years of research. E-Journal Bewegung und Training, 1 (Target-Article Preprint), 1-11. Verfügbar unter: web.visu.uni-saarland.de/cgi-bin/dcforum/deboard.cgi [15. 02. 2007]Wulf, G. , McNevin, N. H. (2003). Simply distracting learners is not enough: More evidence for the learning benefits of an external focus of attention. European Journal of Sport Science, 3 (5), 1– 13Wulf, G. , Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 648– 660Wulf, G. , Höß, M. , Prinz, W. (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects of internal versus external focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 169– 179Wulf, G. , Lauterbach, B. , Toole, T. (1999). The learning advantages of an external focus of attention in golf. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 120– 126Wulf, G. , McConnel, N. , Gärtner, M. , Schwarz, A. (2002). Enhancing the learning of sport skills through external-focus feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34, 171– 182Wulf, G. , McNevin, N. H. , Shea, C. H. (2001). The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1143– 1154Wulf, G. , McNevin, N. H. , Fuchs, T. , Ritter, F. , Toole, T. (2000). Attentional focus in complex skill learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 229– 239Wulf, G. , Shea, C. H. , Park, J.-H. (2001). Attention and motor performance: Preferences for and advantages of an external focus. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 335– 344Zachry, 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, 304– 309Zentgraf, K. (2006). Attentional foci in modeling: Experimental studies in motor learning of sports skills . Berlin: dissertation.de
