eal Edveaton, Recreation and ‘V4L70,No.2:pp 120-126 in Golf g jabriele Wulf, Barbara Lauterbach, and Tonya Toole The Learning Advantages of an External Focus of Attention This study examined whether the earning advantages of an external focus of attention relative to an internal focus, as demon- strated by Wulf, Hf, and Prinz (1998), would also be found for a sport skill under feld-like conditions. Participants (9 women, 13 men; age range: 21-29 years) without experience in golf were required to practice pitch shots. The practice phase consisted of 80 practice tials. One group was instructed to focus on the arm swing (internal focus), whereas another group was instructed to sus on the cub swing (external focus). One day after practice, a retention tes of 30 trials without instructions was performed. \eexternal-focus condition was mare effective for performance during both practice and retention. words: motor learning, computer skills, instructions, aktentional focus nsirucionsare a central pati teaching motor sil When learninga new motor kil, he earners usually ven instructions regarding the correct technique. For Ghample,in teaching a urn in downhill skiing, instruc: thes ypicaly demonstrate and describe to the learner the chrreet posture and coordination ofthe leg, trunk, and ‘movements during the various phases ofthe tum, 0 se the poles, when to shift the weight from one to the other, and so forth. Instructions such as those tfatreferw coordinating the performers body movement afe very common in the teaching of motor sills. Recently. the effectiveness of such instructions has en questioned, however, Wulf and Weigelt (1997) wed that giving learners insiuctions about how to bes ce salom-ype movements on aski molar, such instructing leamers when to exert force on the plz fBrmon which they were standing (eg, Vereijken, 1991; ‘Submitted: Apri 29,198 ‘Accepted: December 1,198 Gabriele Wolt is withthe Max Planck a for Psychological Research. Barbara Lauterbach is with the University of Munich. Tonya Toole is withthe Department of Nutrition, Food, and Movement Sciences at Florida State University. 120 ijken, Whiting, & Beek, 1992), degraded perfor mance and transfer to a “stress” situation, compared to no instructions. This study provided prelimirary evidence that directing the performer's attention to her or his own ‘movements can not only disrupt the execution of auto- mated skills, as was suggested previously (e.g. Bliss, 1892- 93; Boder, 1935; Masters, 1992; Schmidt, 1988; Schneider 4& Fisk, 1983), but it can also have degrading effects on the acquisition of new skills. Interestingly, providing learners with instructions was even more detrimental than no instructions at al. More importantly, Wulf, H68, and Prinz (1998) ar- gued that instructions might be more beneficial for learning if they direct the learner's attention to the ¢f- {eesthat her or his movements have on the environment (eg., the experimental apparatus or sporting equip- ment), In two experiments, they demonstrated the greater effectiveness of an “external” focus of attention (ie., where the performer's attention is directed to the ‘effect of the action, as compared to an “internal” focus of attention, where attention! is directed to the action it- self). Using a skisimulator task (Experiment 1), they found that instructing participants to focus on the force they exerted on the wheels of the platform was more ef- fective than focusing their attention on the feet that ex- certed the force (even though the wheels were located directly under the feet) in both acquisition and reten- tion. Their Experiment 2 demonstrated the generaliza- ROES: June 1999bility of this effect by showing that the learning of a stabilometer task was also enhanced by an external fo- ‘cus of attention (markersattached to the board), relative toan internal attentional focus (fet). Thus, both experi- ‘ments were consistent in showing that mirior differences in the attentional focus induced by the instructions given to learners can have a decisive effect not only on per- formance during acquisition, when the instructions are given, but also on learning, as medsured by delayed re- tention tests without instructions. ‘The “common coding” view of perception and action (Prinz, 1990) provides a possible explanation for the advantages of focusing on the effects of one’s movements rather than on the movernents themselves, Similar to the ideas already proposed by James (1890) that actions are controlled by their “remoie” effects, Prinz (1990, 1997) argued that we perceive and plan our actions in terms of “distal events” (ie., their intended outcome), a8 this is the only format that allows for commensurate coding of \ perception and action. Therefore, actions should be ‘more effective if they are planned in terms of the antici- pated outcome, ratfier than in terms of the specific move- ‘ment pattern ‘The learning advantages of an external attentional focus in the Wulf and Weigelt (1997) and Wulf et al, (1998) studies could have important implications for the teaching of motor skills in practical settings. In sports, instructions are typically used that focus the perform: 1s’ attention on their body movements (internal focus) Demonstrating that instructions inducing an external focus of attention can be more beneficial in these situa- tions as well could potentially have major consequences for the effectiveness of training procedures. Therefore, the goal of this study was to determine the robustness of this effect and its generalizability to learning sport skills under field-like conditions. The need for this ype of applied research with the goal to “develop theory- based knowledge appropriate for understanding the learning of practical motor skills in practical settings...” (Level 2 research) has been emphasized. by Christina (1987, pp. 29-80). In contrast to the more prevalent Level I research (basic), which often lacks direct practi- cal relevance, Level 2 research seems to have more po- tential to provide a rational basis for decision making in reallife training situations (Christina, 1987, 1989). In the present study, participants with no experience in golf were required to perform pitch shots. While the basic instructions regarding grip, stance, and posture were the same for all participants, the instructions dif- fered in that the attention of one group of participants was directed to the arm swing (internal focus), whereas participants of another group were instructed to focus on the club swing (external focus). The learning effects of theseconditions were assessed 1 day after the prac- session jn a retention test without instructions. To re that the effects of the independent variables, if OES: June 1999 Wil euterbach, and Tole 4 any, were not only temporiry byt relatively permanent in nature (ic., affected the learning of this task: Magillye 1998; Schmidt & Lee, 1999), all participants performed a retention test without instructions 1 day after the prac- tice session, Although different measures can be used 1 to assess learning (cf. Christina, 1997), performance in «, retention is commonly used to infer whether the:inde. pendent variables had differential effects on learning. Method Participants ‘Twenty-two right-handed students of the Technical University of Munich (9 women and 13 men) between the ages of 21 and 29 years volunteered to participate in this experiment, All provided informed consént before participating in the study. None of the participants had prior experience with playing golf of hittiig golf halls. snpary and Tee The experiment was conducted outdoors on a lawn surface, The participants’ task was to hit golf balls into a ircular target with a radius of 45 cm. Ten balls were pro- vided so thata block of 10 trials could be performed with- out interruption. The target was located at a distance of 15 m from wheré the participant was standing. The club used was a9 iron, because itis often used for the pitch shot when actually playing the’yame. For concentric circles with radil of 1.45, 2.45, 3.45, and 4.45 m, respec tively, were placed around the target to determine the distance off target. That is, the experimenter recorded where the Dall landed.’ Procedure Participants were randomly assigned to one af two ‘groups with the restriction that there be an equal inum- ber pér group: the inté?nal-focus grqup and the exte® nalfocus group. Before the beginning of the practice phase, the experimenter spent about 10 min with each participant to explain and demonstrate the basic jech- nique of the pitch shot. All participants were given the same instructions regarding the grip, stance, and posture. ‘The overlapping grip was.taught. The stance was open with the body leaning towafd the left so ihat approxi; mately 60-70% of the weight was centered on the leftleg. AC" postufe was assumed that included flexion. at the. ness and tp Sa ‘The instructions for the two groups differed with” 1 regucd to the swing, heviever. The instructions f0F the. intematfocul participants were directed at the singing |» motion ofthe arms. The participant was asked to put her | year fattc oe I or his hands together in the correct “rip,” but without the chub, and to swing the arms back and, forth. The participant's attention wis directed a theleft arm being Straight and the right arm being somewhat bent during, the backawing, both arms being straight during the for- (ral swing. and the right arm being straight and the left drm being bent during the follow-through. The partii- pant then performed the swinging motion holding the Club by both hands in the correet grip about 20 times {orthout hiting a ball, with the instruction co Focus on thecorrectarm movements. The experimenter gave feed: back about the grip, stance, posture, or swinging motion itecessary. The attentional focus of the exiemal{ocus pattcipants was directed toward the club movement. Specifeally the participant was asked to let the club per- form 2 pendulum-like motion, Toillustrate this point, the paticipant was to hold the club by the grip between the fnimb and index finger of the right hand, push the club to parts pendulum motion, and concentrate on the weight of the clubhead. Finally, the external-focus par ints also performed 20 swinging motions with the cb. Participants were instructed (0 let the club swing freply and focus on the weight of the clubhead, the strgightline direction of the clubhead path, and the ac- celpraion ofthe clubhead moving toward the bottom of thd are. Again, participants were given feedback about théir performante as necessary. “Thus, overall the instructions were similar forthe two grdups. The only difference in the instructions was that the auention of the internal-focus participants was di rected toward their body movements (arms), whereas the ‘external focus participants were to focus on the club ovement. After the introductory instructions and prac tice without the ball, ll participants performed 80 prac- tice trials, with the goal being to hit the target. Each pardeipane hit 10 balls in a row, with the experimenter Fecording the scores. The balls were then collected, and the participant performed the next 10 shots, etc. Before teach set of 10 trials, the experimenter reminded the participant of the cue (arms or club) that he or she was, fo focus on. One day later, all participants performed a retention west consisting of 30 trials. Ho instructions or reminders were given on the second fay Dependent Measures | paripans performances were sordin hello inca Bashing henge received 6 point bab itp tine en spo wee b second cone 8 pine ands fon lho see suntcs independent a ehetheror the hd proper Biron pitch uajetoy the pardepant ee Re pallor id not and In on ofthe sane, meta wer recorded The toed oe in exch 10 edhe ten seid for ene parcpane The Pate daa were anaacd in? (Groupe) x8 oe) " I ‘nalyses of variance (ANOVAS) with repeated measures tn the las factor, and the retention data were analyzed in2 (Groups) x3 (Blocks) repeated measures ANOVAS. Results Practice Both groups became increasingly accurate in their shots across the practice phase, with the external-focus ‘group achieving considerably higher scores than the in- ternal focus group throughout the whole practice phase (see left panel of Figure 1). The main effects of both group, F(1, 20) =37.8, p<.001, «* =.77, and block, AU, 140) =8.2, p<.001, were significant. There was no Group x Block interaction, FA7, 140) <1 Table 1 shows the average percentages of scores achieved by the external-and internal-focus participants uring the first and second half of the practice phase. While both groups hit more balls aloser to the target in the second half of practice compared to the first half the externalfocus group was generally more effective these participants achieved higher scores more fre- quently and lower scores, in particular, zero scores, less frequently than the internalfocus group participants. Retention Performance on the retention test without instruc- tions on Day 2 can be seen to the right of Figure 1. The external-focué group was again generally more effective than the internalfocus group. The main effect of group: ‘was significant, with FU1, 20) = 6.6, p=.018, 0” = .34, The main effect of block ang the interaction of group and block were not significant, F{2, 40) < 1. Practice Retention E AE= err gre erage ers oti an eA Oa eer ot een OES: June 1999‘A comparison of the average percentages of shows that scored 5, 4,3, 21, of O points on the 30 retention trials also impressively demonstrates the superior perfor mance ofthe externalfocus group (see Table 1). While the number of times the target was hit (5 points) was relatively low for both groups, the externalfocus group again hit the zones that were closer to the target more often than the internal-focus group, aid vce versa. Alsg, the externabfocus group had fewer scorés of 0 than ue internabfocus group, Discussion Our goal in this study was to determine the gen- cralizability of the advantages of an external attentional focus found by Wulf etal. (1998) to learning a sport skill under field-like conditions. The results were clear in showing that the golf task used was learned more effec- tively ifthe learner's attention was focused on the imple- ‘ment, that is, golf club (external focus) as compared to when it was directed at the arm movements (internal focus). The external-focus group already demonstrated performance benefits early in practice (first block of ten trials), and this advantage was maintained throughout the whole practice session. In fact, the average scores of the external-focus group (21.0) were almost twice as high as those of the internalfocus group (10.8) during p-ac- tice. The effect size (as? = .77) also indicated that -his group difference can be considered as large (Cohen, 1988). These benefits of the external-focus instructions were not only temporary, but,were also seen in the de- layed retention test (without instructions). Here again, the externalfocus group demonstrated a significantly greater accuracy than the internaFfocus group. The ef Table 1. Average percentages of scores achieved by the internal- ‘and external-focus groups during the first (Practice 1) and second half (Practice 2 of practice and in retention Scores Practice 1 Practice 2 Retention External internal- External Internal _Exornal Internal 5 a4 05 50 14 27° 30 ‘ eo 68 = 23 HDC 3 mS 88 «027 10, 130 2 165 107 = 180188347 1 jag 63s tat too " ul puterdech, and Toole fect size (w* = $4) was only small to moderate (Cohen, 1988) in retention, however, presumably. participants ~ were not given reminders regarding the attentional fo- ccus. This stiggests that the effecis of attentional focus y instructions may be particularly powerful when they are present and directly affect the performer's focus of at tention. Nevertheless, the insiructions had a refatively 7 permanent effect (i. this task). Overall, these results show that the advantages of directing the learners’ attention away from their own movéments and to the effects of these movements, 28 demonstrated by Wulf etal. (1998), are generalizable to earning sport skills ‘The fact that the externalfocus condition demon- strated performance benefits earlyin practice mightseem surprising. In the Wulf etal. (1998) study, these advan- tages showed up at the end of the first day of practice on. the skisimulator task (Experiinent 1), whereas they did not appear until the third day (retension) on the * stabilometer task. Thus, there might be task-related dif ferences affeéting the differential effectiveness of extet= nal-versus internal-focus instructions. Also, it should be- pointed out that the differences in the aclual locus of attention between the.two conditions were extremely” small ihe Walf etal. experiments, that is, participants were to facus either on their feet or a pair of wheels d- rectly under their feet (ski simulator), or onmarkers lo- cated directly in front of their feet (stabilometer), respectively. Considering the spatial proximity of these cues, itis surprising that group differences o¢curred at all In the present experiment, the “distance” between the cues (arms vf, club) was.considerably greater—-not only spatially, but perhaps also in their distinctiveness for the participants. This might be bne reason why group differences seemed to be even more clear in this case. In addition, one has to take into account that before the beginning of the actual practice phase participants per- formed 20 swings without hitting a ball, with their atten- tion being directed at the respective cues (arms s. club). This might also explain why the external-focus benefits were already seen on the first 10-ral block. + ‘As early as 1920, Ernest Jones advocated his ideas aboutattentional focus on the clubhead in golf (cones. & Eisenberg, 1952). Altugh Jones did not use the term “external focus.” his ideas were ceitainly related to attentional focus on the clubhead, plane, direction of the Clubhead, effects of the weight of the clubhead, etc. One research study (Toole, 1969) supported hisideas, atleast with those who were skilled in batting. In Toole’s study, “for those who could adequately perform the body move-_: ment essential to skill n batting, attention tb movement ‘of the golf club pertaining to plane, range, and acceler. ‘on was sufficient to elicit the requisite body m ‘which were habituated in the related skilfot 65). The results of the present study extend those of: Teole’s (1969) by showing that directing the learners’ V ttiey influenced the learning of,luleiot tothe ehib might generally he more effective foie analy done in practical settings In fac, the cor redtarmn moremens jus seem to emerge asa nuralCon- Sequence ofthe club movement. Differential effecs of focusing on one’s own body ovement verse focusing onthe elfects of these move- tents onthe environment have also been postulated by Jaines (1890). He distinguished between “close effects” nave direct consequences of the action (eg the Ki ‘esthetic feedback asociated with hammeringin anil), Sha cremote effect that refer to the more or less dis tant results ofthe action (eg, the nail in the wall). In dliscusing which aspects of intended actions/are fanc- tidal for action control, James points out that remote effects are often more important than the action ise” {of is close effecs), Thats, focusing onthe remote ef feats of actions i. their (perceived) results should be more effective for their control than focusing on their Close effec, eg, the movements themselves. Similar tdeas can be found in Lowe's work (1852). In his view, movements are represented by codes oftheir perceived tifects The desired outcome somehow has the power to guide the action such that this outcome is obtained. More recently, Prinz and colléagues (Prinz, 1992, 19h; Pring, Aschersleben, Hommel, & Vogt, 1995) and Hommel (1997) have taken up the idea that actions are {ben planned and controled by their intended effects (Chetion effect hypothesis” Prinz, 1997). Prine (1990) of feledax"common coding” explanation for this pherom- trlon, Contrary to aditonalvews, which assume there srt different and incommensurate coding systems for AMbrent and eferent information (6 Welford, 1968; Sahders, 1980; Mascaro, 1090), Pring argued for a com mngn representational medium for perception and acon, ‘According to this view, we plan actions in terms of distal rants and perceive distal evens, because efferent and rent codes can only be generated and maintained opnmensurately a this abtract evel of representation ‘Thats only the format of “distal events allows for com= Imgnsurate coding and efficient action planing (see Print, 1992). Thus, according to the fommon coding Sidwactions should be more effective planned i terms oftheir intended outcome (or “remotdetfects in James tems) rather tha the specific moverhent patterns. Our fesullsare in line with this prediction ‘One advantage expert performers have, compared to novices, might actually be that they focus on the in- tended effect rather than on the movement sell. That ie they allow the motor scm "to do what it as to do | to produce the intended effect. The socalled fivestep approach proposed by Singer (eg. Kim, Singer, & Rado, 1006; Singer Lidor. & Cauraugh, 1903) can be seen as lating the strategies used by expert in teaching motor skills to novices. A critical feature of his approach ir at the learner is instructed not to think about the 18 movementushile executing t Singer and colleagues (eg Kin, Singer & Racllo, 1996; Singer, Flora, 8 Abourezk, 1186 Singer eta, 1993) have shown that this approach can be mote effective for learning new skills rather than instructing learners o be aware oftheir hody movements during execution. Similarly, Wulf and Weigelt (1997) found thatasking performers on the ski simulator to pay aention to thei “timing of forcing” disrupted not only the performance of experts (Experiment 2) butalso the performance (and learning) of novices, eelative to no Instructions, that i, 3 discovery learning condition {Experiment 1). The present reuls, together with those of Wulf and colleagues (1997, 1998), suggested that an effective strategy for teaching is not only to direct the earners attention away from their movements (or hope they will discover the correct movement pattern them- Selves) but also to focus their atention on the external effects oftheir movements. Interestingly, based on his extensive experience asa tennis coach, Gallwey (1982) came to a similar conclu- sion. A strategy he recommended to players too con- cerned with how they ht the ball—which is probably not tncommon, considering the emphasis placed on the correct technique during trining—was what he called “programming for results” Gallwey suggested they shift their atention from means to ends" (Calley, 1982, p. 58). He gave the example of a player who tried to work Ga various aspects of her forchand. Instead of giving her instructions on each of these elements, Gallwey asked her to focus on how she wanted the ball to go over the net and where she wanted it4o land (ie to have “a clear visual image ofthe ysultsshe desired” p. 57, emphasis by Gallwey). Gallwey noticed almost immediate changes notonly of the ball’ path, but also with elements ofthe player's movement pattern that she had unsuccessully tried to correct earlier apparently without the player being aware ofthese changes). “Phe advantages ofan external focus of attention are perhaps most easly seen in tasks requiring the use ofan Fmplement (eg. bal, bat, sks, surfboard, hang glider). ‘ne question that needs to be addressed in future re- scarch is whether similar observations would also be made in movement skills that do not have obvious effects on the environment (eg, gymnastics, diving) Tn these cases, fone might have to resort more to bodyrelated (internal- focus) instructions. Also, independent ofthe ype of sil, focusing on one’s body movements might be necessary in situations for example, in which an error i resistant to correction by simply focusing on the movement out- come. Furthermore, the generalizability of the benefits ff external-focus instructions to different types of skills, Skill levels, or age groups needs to be examined in fu ture studies. : “The present results could also have imp! other aspects of teaching, The use'of metaphors, forex. ample. might be beneficial for performanceand learn e beneing, as they seem to detract the performer's attention from his or her body movement while providing a men- tal image of the movement goal. Also, the effectiveness ‘of modelling could perhaps be optimized by encourag- ing the learner to just imitate the movements of the model without worrying about whether the movements are performed correctly. In fact, anecdotal evidence sug ‘gests that, for example, playing tennis after watching) world-class tennis match can result in much better p formance than usual—at least until the performer thin} about what she or he is doing differently to make ah his game more effective. Also, one reason children seei to learn new motor skills faster than adults might be that they do not think or worry about the correct technique ut simply imitate their idols. Finally, the effectiveness Jf feedback procedures might depend on whether they rect the performers' attention to their own movement patterns or the results of their movements (Shea & Wulf, 1998). Questions such as these also need to he addressed by future research. ‘Overall, the’ present results, together with those of ‘Wulf etal, (1998), provide converging evidence dlemon- strating that instructions focusing the learners’ attention on the intended effect oftheir movements (external fo- cus) rather than the movements themselves (internal focus) seem to be more advantageous for performance and learning. These results seem to have important im- plications for optimizing instructions for motor learning. References Bliss, C. B. (1892-03), Investigations in reaction time sd at ‘ention, Studies fem the Yale Prychoogical Latoraiory, 1 = Bodler,D.F, (1985). The influence of concomitant activity ae fatigue upon certain fori of reciprocal hand movements and its fundamental components. Comparative Psychology Monographs, 11 (No. 4). ‘Christina, R. W. (1987). Motor learning: Future lines of re= search, In M. J. Safrit & H, M. Eckert (Eds.), The cutting ‘edge in physical eduention and exercise science msearch (Ame ‘an Academy of Physical Education Papers No. 20, pp. 26- 41), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Christina, R. W, (1989). What happened to applied research in motor learning? In J. S. Skinner, C. B. Corbin, D. M. Landers, P. E. Martin, RC. L. Wells (Eds), Future dime tions in exercise and sport science research (pp. AU1=422). Champain, Il: Human Kinetics Christina, R. W. (1997). Concerns and issues in studying and sing motor learning. Measurement in Pica Education Exercise Science, 1, 19-88. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sc- ie (Id ed). New York: Academic Press Gallwey, W.T, (1982). The inner game of tenis. New York: Bane tam Books. ROES: June 1999 * Wot, Levarbach, end Tole Hommel, B. (1997), Toward an action-concept model of ” James, W. (1890). The principles of pycology (Vol.2). New Yorks’ Dover Publications. Jones, E, & Eisenberg, D. (1952). Swing the lubhend New York: Dadi, Mead, and Co. Kim, J, Singer, R N., & Radio. J. (1996). Degree of gogni- tive demands in psychomotor tatks and the effects of the fivestep strategy on achievement. Human Peormanc, 8, 155-169, Lotz, RH. (1852), Maticinsche Psychologie oder Phyiolige der ‘Seele (Medical psychology oF physiology of the-roull. Leipsg, Germany: Weidmann sche Buchhandlung. Magill, BA. (1998). Motor learning: Concepts and application (Gth ed). Madison, WE: WCB/MeGrawHill, Massaro, D. W, (1990). An information-processing analysis of, perception and action, ln O. Neumann & W, Prin (Eds. Relationships betorn perception and ection: Current approaches, (pp. 138-166). Berlin, Germany: Springer." : Masters, RS. W, (1992), Roowledge, knerves, and knovehow "> rete ‘of explicit versus implicit knowledge.irvthe breakdown of complex motor skill under pressure. Bri- toh Journal of Payeholgy, 83, 343-858. Prinz, W, (1990). A common coding approach to'perception “and action, In O. Neumann, & W. Prinz (Eds), Relation» ‘hips besren perception and action: Cwent approaches (Bp. 167-201). Berlin, Germany: Springer Prinz, W. (1992). Why don't we perceive our brain states? Eu ‘penn Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 1-20. o Pring, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. The Euro.” ran Journal of Cognitive Pscholo, 9, 129-154. . Prinz, W., Aschersleben, G., Hommel, B., & Vogt, S. (1995). + Tanlungen alsereigniswe [Actionsasevents]-aD.Domer BE, van der Meer (Eds), Das Gedachinis: Probleme Trend—Perpetiven (pp. 129-168), Gottingen: Hogrete wilers, A. F, (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In G. E. Siélmach & J. Requin (Eds. Tutoriale in motor be favior (pp. 381-354). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Schmidt, R.A. (1988), Motor control and learning: A behavioral ‘emphasis (2nd ed.). Champaign, 1: Human Kinetics, Selumidt, R.A, & Lee, ED, (1999). Motor contol and learn ing’ A behavioral enphaid (3rd ed). Champaign, tL: Hu snian Kinetics. Scluvider, W:. & Fish, A. D. (1988). Attention theory and tnechanisms for skilled performance. In R. A: Magill (Ed.), Memory and control of action (pp. 119-148)... Amsterdam: North-Holland, 2, C. H.,& Wall, (1998), Enhancing motor earning through ‘extemal focus instructions and ferfback, Paper presented at the Third Annual Meeting of the European Gollege of Sport Science, Manchester (UK), July 15-18. Singer, R.N.. Flora, L.A, & Abourezk, T. (1989). The effect ~ ‘of a fivestep cognitive learning strategy on the acquisi- tion of a complex motor task, Journal of Applied Sport Pry chology, 98(1), 98-108,Wat, Lauterbach ad Tole singer RN Lidor R., & Cauraugh J H. (1999). To be aware rot aware? Wha to think bout while learning and performing a motor kil. The Sort Prcolgit, 7, 19-30. Toole T (1969) The effec of thr aching methods i goon cient of nr with differnt ili lated tsk Unpublished Master’ thsi, University of Wisconsin, Madison Vefejten.B (1991). The dynamier of sil ecustion, Meppel Holland: Kris Repro. Yefeien,B Whiting, HT. A. & Beek, WJ. (1992). A dy- tamil aptems approach to skill acquisition. Querely Journal of Exprinental Pcl, 44, 328-844 Wefan AT (1968), Fundamental of il. London: Methuen Watt G. H80, MX Prin, W. (1998). Instructions for mo- ‘or leaming: Differential effects of internal versus exter | al focus of attention, Journal of Motr Behavior, 30, 169- | i, Wulf, G. & Weigelt, C. (1997). Instructions about physical principles in learning a complex motor skil: To tell or 4 fot to tell. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 362-367. | Note Note 1. Toavoid variability due to differences in the lawn sur face, we used the landing point of the ball, rather than the point where the ball came to a stop, to determine the deviation from the target. Authors’ Notes ‘This study was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinsckaft (Pr 118/181), We thank Rob- ¢rt Christina, Bob KohlsDick Magill, and David Sherwood for their valuable comments on a previous version of the manuscript, Please address all correspondence concern- ing this article to Gabriele Wulf, Max Planck Institute for Peychological Research, Leopoldstr. 24, 80802 Munich, Germany. E-mail: wulf@mpipfmuenchen.mpg.de