There is debate in the literature regarding how manipulating the focus of attention (FOA) influences ground reaction forces during the standing long jump (SLJ) and gaps in understanding as to which phases of the SLJ are affected (takeoff, flight, and landing) and whether FOA manipulation benefits remain when tasks are performed in fixed body postures. Purpose: This study compared SLJ performance under external (EXT) and internal (INT) FOA conditions with free and fixed postures. Methods: Twenty participants performed SLJs under EXT and INT FOA conditions while being allowed to swing arms freely and having to keep hands on their hips. Kinematics and kinetics were recorded using 3D-motion capture and force plates. Jump distances, projection angles, and ground reaction forces and impulses were compared across conditions using a 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA. Results: Jump distances were significantly further with EXT FOA (p < .001). These differences were due to increases in the takeoff distance (p < .001) and landing distances (p < .001), with flight distances not being different between the conditions (p = .061). Peak horizontal ground reaction forces (p < .001) and impulses (p < .001) were both greater, while projection angles were lower (p = .002) in the EXT FOA condition. Conclusions: Improvements in SLJ distance with an EXT FOA are due to the takeoff and landing phases; manipulating FOA does change forces during the SLJ; and that benefits of an EXT FOA are realized even when movements are performed with constrained body postures.
There is debate in the literature regarding how manipulating the focus of attention (FOA) influences ground reaction forces during the standing long jump (SLJ) and gaps in understanding as to which phases of the SLJ are affected (takeoff, flight, and landing) and whether FOA manipulation benefits remain when tasks are performed in fixed body postures. Purpose: This study compared SLJ performance under external (EXT) and internal (INT) FOA conditions with free and fixed postures. Methods: Twenty participants performed SLJs under EXT and INT FOA conditions while being allowed to swing arms freely and having to keep hands on their hips. Kinematics and kinetics were recorded using 3D-motion capture and force plates. Jump distances, projection angles, and ground reaction forces and impulses were compared across conditions using a 2 × 3 repeated measures ANOVA. Results: Jump distances were significantly further with EXT FOA (p < .001). These differences were due to increases in the takeoff distance (p < .001) and landing distances (p < .001), with flight distances not being different between the conditions (p = .061). Peak horizontal ground reaction forces (p < .001) and impulses (p < .001) were both greater, while projection angles were lower (p = .002) in the EXT FOA condition. Conclusions: Improvements in SLJ distance with an EXT FOA are due to the takeoff and landing phases; manipulating FOA does change forces during the SLJ; and that benefits of an EXT FOA are realized even when movements are performed with constrained body postures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Constrained action hypothesis; external versus internal focus of attention; standing long jump
Authors: Jared M Porter; Will F W Wu; Richard M Crossley; Seth W Knopp; Olivia C Campbell Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.775