Within the last decade, the influence of focus of attention (FOA) instruction on postural control has been an increased interest among researchers (Yeh et al., 2016; McNevin et al., 2013). The general agreement when it comes to the role of FOA has been that adopting an external (EXT) FOA enhances the efficiency of motor programming by strengthening the relationship between movement planning and outcome, when compared to an internal (INT) FOA (see Wulf, 2013). However, increasing evidence suggests that the benefits from an EXT FOA can be mitigated by certain factors (e.g., age, skill level, novelty of the task and task complexity; Becker & Smith, 2013; Emanuel et al., 2008). As such, questions remain as to what form of FOA instruction is best suited for young learners, as FOA research has been criticized for being studied almost exclusively among adults (Agar et al., 2016). Research in this area is particularly sparse as it pertains to FOA in combination with postural control among this younger age group. This is particularly problematic as significant changes in postural control, stability and balance occur during one’s first decade in life (Haas, et al., 1989; Hay & Redon, 1999; Barela et al., 2003). Moreover, there exists some methodological concerns with regard to the lack of consistency of FOA instructions being used during experimentation. This directly influences where participants are guiding their attention and their interpretation of FOA cues (Davids, 2007; Petranek, et al., 2019). Further, the lack of replicability of traditional FOA studies and the increasing number of non-statistically significant findings in this research, calls into question the overall validity, both internal and external, regarding FOA instruction (Becker & Smith, 2013; Lawrence et al., 2011). Therefore, as a series of four complementary studies, the overall aim of this thesis is to further investigate these theoretical as well as procedural gaps.
The first study examines which type of FOA instruction is best suited for two groups of young learners (typically developing children between 4-6 and 7-10 years of age) performing a postural control task. Participants will be randomized into either an INT, EXT or CTRL condition, where they will perform a postural control task with different respective visual displays. A force platform will be used to assess participants’ mediolateral centre of pressure (COP) performance, and electromyography (EMG) will be used to assess muscular activation of the participants’ major ankle stabilizers. The primary goal of study one is to investigate the influence of FOA in children by following the most common and traditional of FOA instruction.
The second study serves as an extension for the first study. The aim of this study is to specifically investigate the validity and reliability of using FOA instructions, and whether or not the different attentional cues can drive their intended mental focus states. The method of this study is identical to those is Study 1 with a few major exceptions. In this case, two manipulation checks will be added to the procedure in order to assess how participants perceived, comprehended, and acted to their assigned FOA instructional condition. The first manipulation check is embedded in the structure of the trial itself: the comparison of postural control performance with and without visual information, modeled after the technique used in Yeh and colleagues (2016). The second manipulation check will be a retrospective verbal interview inspired by Perreault & French (2016).
Finally, the third and fourth studies look to expand the research question from study one and two to different populations of atypically developing young learners who are known to struggle with both attention and postural control. Individuals with ADHD and individuals with DCD have been shown to interpret attentional and postural information differently when compared to age-matched controls. Therefore, the aim of these studies is to compare the differing effects of FOA across neurodiverse populations. Specifically, study three will use a group of young learners (from 4 – 10 years of age) with ADHD and study four will use a group of young learners (from 4 – 10 years of age) with DCD. The only differences in these studies compared to study one will be the lack of an age split and the use of EMG assessment. / Thesis / Master of Science in Kinesiology
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/27212 |
| Date | January 2021 |
| Creators | Erskine, Noah |
| Contributors | Lyons, Jim, Kinesiology |
| Source Sets | McMaster University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0023 seconds