Does focus of attention alter craniocervical flexion test motor learning? A randomized controlled trial
| Autor: | Francisco Xavier de Araujo, Carolina Gomes Rosa, Maurício Scholl Schell, Rosicler da Rosa Almeida, Marcelo Faria Silva, Ian Sulzbacher Peroni |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Male medicine.medical_specialty Adolescent Focus (geometry) medicine.medical_treatment education Biophysics Flexion Test Experimental and Cognitive Psychology Biofeedback law.invention Young Adult 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Physical medicine and rehabilitation Randomized controlled trial Memory Neck Muscles law medicine Humans Learning Attention Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Range of Motion Articular business.industry Cervical muscles Motor control 030229 sport sciences General Medicine Middle Aged Atlanto-Axial Joint Motor Skills Female Motor learning Range of motion business Psychomotor Performance 030217 neurology & neurosurgery |
| Zdroj: | Human Movement Science. 74:102709 |
| ISSN: | 0167-9457 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.humov.2020.102709 |
| Popis: | Objective To evaluate the effects of three different foci of attention (internal, external and mixed) on motor learning using craniocervical flexion test in inexperienced participants. Methods Ninety healthy young adults, with no experience in the task, practiced the craniocervical flexion test under three different focus of attention: a) Mixed Focus (internal plus external), b) Internal Focus, and c) External Focus. We assessed immediate, post-training, and retention (one week after the last training session) aspects of motor learning by quantifying (i) the activity of the superficial cervical flexors muscles, (ii) craniocervical range of motion, and (iii) the performance on the craniocervical flexion test. Results None of the groups showed any significant immediate, post-training, or retention effects on superficial neck flexors activity and craniocervical range of motion progression. At immediate assessment, mixed focus had greater craniocervical flexion performance than external (MD 0.9, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.5), and internal foci (MD 1.4, 95%CI 0.8 to 2.1). At post-training, mixed focus led to better craniocervical performance compared to external (MD 1.6, 95%CI 0.8 to 2.4) and internal foci (MD 2.7, 95%CI 1.9 to 3.5). External focus had better scores on the craniocervical flexion test performance than internal focus (MD 1.1, 95%CI 0.3 to 1.9). Results remained similar at retention, with mixed focus being superior to internal (MD 2.3, 95%CI 1.7 to 3) and external foci (MD 1.5, 95%CI 0.9 to 2.1) on craniocervical flexion test performance. Similarly, the performance on the craniocervical flexion test performance remained similar at retention between external and internal foci (MD 0.9, 95%CI 0.2 to 1.5). Conclusion In inexperienced asymptomatic participants, different foci of attention were not able to change cervical muscle activity and craniocervical range of motion during the craniocervical flexion test. Mixed focus was better than external and internal focus on the craniocervical flexion test. These findings were retained after one week. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect