Name: ANDERSON RODRIGUES DELUNARDO
Publication date: 11/09/2025
Examining board:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| DANIELA GODOI JACOMASSI | Examinador Externo |
| NATALIA MADALENA RINALDI | Presidente |
| RODRIGO LEAL DE QUEIROZ THOMAZ DE AQUINO | Examinador Interno |
Summary: In a training session, it is common for coaches to provide verbal instructions and commands to their athletes, directing attentional focus to either external (external focus) or internal (internal focus) elements of the performed movement. Enhanced performance when maintaining attention on external elements of movement has been verified in several studies, highlighting the caution coaches must exercise when selecting the content of their instructions. These studies also indicate that external focus strategies are effective in reducing postural sway. Since increased efficiency of postural control may be associated with the optimization of sports movements as well as the reduction of falls and injuries, these results suggest external focus strategies as a useful tool for coaches in different sports. However, different sports practices take place in environments of varying predictability—more unpredictable, such as football, and more predictable, such as running. Combined with the motor characteristics of each modality, these differences may explain the unique postural adaptations and regulations adopted by their practitioners. Nevertheless, the role and effects of attentional focus strategies on postural performance and regulation in these different athlete profiles remain not fully elucidated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of attentional focus on the efficacy (sway) and efficiency (muscle activity) of postural control in football and running practitioners. These modalities have distinct motor and environmental characteristics, potentially leading to the development of unique postural strategies and regulations. For this purpose, the following methodological procedures were applied in this experimental research: Forty-five young adults (18–40 years) participated, distributed into running (n=15), football (n=15), and control (n=15) groups. Postural control was assessed using a force platform under stable and unstable surfaces, in bipedal and single-leg stances. Electromyographic (EMG) signals were collected from the tibialis anterior, medial gastrocnemius, rectus femoris, and biceps femoris muscles of the non-dominant limb. The experimental conditions were organized into two blocks. In the first block, participants received the instruction “stand as still as possible.” Subsequently, a laser strap was positioned on the ankle, and participants performed the second block under the following conditions: (1) Internal Focus (IF), with the instruction “reduce to the maximum your ankle movements,” (2) External Focus (EF), and (3) External Focus with Feedback (EFF), where the instruction for both was “reduce to the maximum the movements of the laser.” In the latter, the laser movement was visible to the participant. The analyzed variables were: (1) mean velocity of COP displacement (VEL) and mean sway amplitude (MSA) (global analysis), (2) time interval between successive peaks (MT), mean value of the peaks (MP), and mean distance between successive peaks (MD) (structural analysis), (3) relative COP spectral power in the frequency bands 0.0–0.3 Hz, 0.3–1.0 Hz, and 1.0–3.0 Hz (spectral analysis), and (4) Coactivation Index (CI) and Linear Envelope (ENV), descriptors of muscle activity. Greater efficacy of postural control (sway reduction) was observed for external focus strategies, particularly when combined with feedback, compared to internal focus and control conditions. Internal focus also promoted sway reduction compared to the control condition. Structural descriptors indicated more stable and effective postural commands under focus conditions relative to control, with no differences between focus types, while spectral analysis evidenced that attentional direction may modulate the use of sensory information for postural stabilization. However, the effects of external focus on the efficiency (muscle activity) of postural control were heterogeneous, revealing increased activation in some muscles and decreased activation in others, making it difficult to consistently associate external focus strategies with greater efficiency of postural control. Furthermore, most of the between-group differences were concentrated in electromyographic activity, suggesting that participants relied on different levels of muscular effort to achieve similar outcomes for sway and postural control dynamics. It is believed that the scarcity of differences (in other descriptors) between modalities limited the detection of more consistent interactions between focus and sport type, which were revealed only for the coactivation index. In conclusion, the results of the present study reinforce the positive effects of external focus on the efficacy and dynamics of postural control. However, the heterogeneous effects of external focus on the efficiency (muscle activity) of postural control suggest caution when associating attentional focus with greater efficiency. Finally, despite the scarcity of significant interactions between group and attentional focus condition for other descriptors, the results found for muscle activity cautiously suggest that the effects of focus may be modulated by sport practice. These findings indicate the possibility of advancing future investigations, including additional analyses and experimental procedures, to better understand the effects of attentional focus on postural control.
Key-words: focus of attention; postural control; electromyography; sport.
