The Effects of External, Internal, and Neutral Attentional Focus on 10-Yard Sprint Performance and Running Mechanics in College-aged Individuals
Loading...
Presenter(s)
Lucas Crouse
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigates the effects of attentional focus, external (EXT), internal (INT), and neutral (CON), on 10-yard sprint performance and running mechanics in collegiate students. Based on the constrained action hypothesis, we expect external focus cues to enhance performance by encouraging more automatic and efficient coordination. Previous studies indicate that external focus cues improve sprint times even among elite and novice athletes, while internal cues may hinder performance. Many elite-level coaches still predominantly use internal focus instructions, suggesting a disconnect between motor learning theory and practical coaching strategies. This study aims to bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical coaching applications by quantifying the performance and biomechanical impact of attentional focus, ultimately offering evidence-based guidance for improving sprint performance in college-aged individuals.
METHODS: 5 college-aged, recreationally active students at Winona State University participated in this research study (male = 4, female = 1). This study employed a within-subject experimental design, with each participant completing three sprint trials under each attentional focus condition. The first session is always the CON condition to account for learning effects, followed by randomized EXT and INT sessions. Sprint times will be measured using the Freelap electronic timing system, which ensures high accuracy. A standardized dynamic warm-up will precede all trials, and sprint mechanics will be captured using slow-motion video recording on an iPad (6th generation). Biomechanical data will be analyzed using kinograms for each participant to visualize performance across key sprint phases as outlined by the ALTIS kinogram method. Mean ± SD and the range for each trial’s time, as well as change-score plots to show the time difference between CON and INT vs EXT conditions. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Mean 10-yard sprint time (averaged across three trials) was calculated for each participant.
RESULTS: Results are as follows: 1.81 ± 0.19 s in the control (CON) condition, 1.85 ± 0.16 s in the INT conditional group, and 1.84 ± 0.15 s in the external focus (EXT) condition. Trial means were consistent across the three attempts within each condition (CON: 1.83, 1.83, 1.78 s; INT: 1.87, 1.84, 1.85 s; EXT: 1.83, 1.84, 1.85 s). Individual responses varied: EXT produced faster mean times than CON for 2 of 5 athletes (improvements of ~0.02–0.05 s), while INT was slower than CON for 3 of 5 athletes (slower by ~0.03–0.11 s).
CONCLUSION: In this pilot sample of college-aged individuals, neither external nor internal attentional focus cues produced a consistent performance advantage over the neutral/control instruction. Although EXT was slightly faster than INT at the group level, performance changes were highly individual, suggesting that cue effectiveness may depend on athlete-specific factors (e.g., skill level, preferred cueing style, or response to instruction). These preliminary findings support using attentional focus cues aloows for flexibly in coaching and justify replication with a larger sample to better evaluate performance and running-mechanics trends.
College
College of Nursing & Health Sciences
Department
Health, Exercise & Rehabilitative Sciences
Campus
Winona
First Advisor/Mentor
Becky Heinert
Second Advisor/Mentor
Justin Geijer
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Format of Presentation or Performance
Pre-Recorded Video
The Effects of External, Internal, and Neutral Attentional Focus on 10-Yard Sprint Performance and Running Mechanics in College-aged Individuals
PURPOSE: This study investigates the effects of attentional focus, external (EXT), internal (INT), and neutral (CON), on 10-yard sprint performance and running mechanics in collegiate students. Based on the constrained action hypothesis, we expect external focus cues to enhance performance by encouraging more automatic and efficient coordination. Previous studies indicate that external focus cues improve sprint times even among elite and novice athletes, while internal cues may hinder performance. Many elite-level coaches still predominantly use internal focus instructions, suggesting a disconnect between motor learning theory and practical coaching strategies. This study aims to bridge the gap between theoretical frameworks and practical coaching applications by quantifying the performance and biomechanical impact of attentional focus, ultimately offering evidence-based guidance for improving sprint performance in college-aged individuals.
METHODS: 5 college-aged, recreationally active students at Winona State University participated in this research study (male = 4, female = 1). This study employed a within-subject experimental design, with each participant completing three sprint trials under each attentional focus condition. The first session is always the CON condition to account for learning effects, followed by randomized EXT and INT sessions. Sprint times will be measured using the Freelap electronic timing system, which ensures high accuracy. A standardized dynamic warm-up will precede all trials, and sprint mechanics will be captured using slow-motion video recording on an iPad (6th generation). Biomechanical data will be analyzed using kinograms for each participant to visualize performance across key sprint phases as outlined by the ALTIS kinogram method. Mean ± SD and the range for each trial’s time, as well as change-score plots to show the time difference between CON and INT vs EXT conditions. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Mean 10-yard sprint time (averaged across three trials) was calculated for each participant.
RESULTS: Results are as follows: 1.81 ± 0.19 s in the control (CON) condition, 1.85 ± 0.16 s in the INT conditional group, and 1.84 ± 0.15 s in the external focus (EXT) condition. Trial means were consistent across the three attempts within each condition (CON: 1.83, 1.83, 1.78 s; INT: 1.87, 1.84, 1.85 s; EXT: 1.83, 1.84, 1.85 s). Individual responses varied: EXT produced faster mean times than CON for 2 of 5 athletes (improvements of ~0.02–0.05 s), while INT was slower than CON for 3 of 5 athletes (slower by ~0.03–0.11 s).
CONCLUSION: In this pilot sample of college-aged individuals, neither external nor internal attentional focus cues produced a consistent performance advantage over the neutral/control instruction. Although EXT was slightly faster than INT at the group level, performance changes were highly individual, suggesting that cue effectiveness may depend on athlete-specific factors (e.g., skill level, preferred cueing style, or response to instruction). These preliminary findings support using attentional focus cues aloows for flexibly in coaching and justify replication with a larger sample to better evaluate performance and running-mechanics trends.
