I was never all that good at tennis, but always did enjoy it. So one summer, I decided that I’d try to introduce the sport to my kids. We went to the store, picked up some kid-sized rackets, and headed out to do some hitting.
Naturally, I started by walking them through the basic grip, stance, and swing…and managed to overwhelm them with instructions and paralyze them with too many things to think about. Basically, I sucked all the joy out of what is essentially whacking balls with a handheld trampoline. 🤣 Which, if nothing else, should be fun, right?
Instructions centered around technique and learning how to move your body the “correct” way often play a central role in the experience of learning a new motor skill.
But is this actually the most effective way to learn a new skill? Or is there a better way to approach – and even accelerate – the learning process?
A study!
In a 2024 study (An & Wulf), 36 relatively inexperienced golfers – i.e. undergraduate students who completed a one-semester golf class – were asked to hit a “pitch shot” towards a target 10 meters away.
Everyone started out by watching a professional golfer demonstrate how to hit the shot. And then they were given basic instructions, like how to hold the club, and the right way to stand and swing.
Up first was a quick test of 20 practice shots to establish a baseline of their ability. And then participants were assigned to one of two groups – an internal focus group and an external focus group.
Different focus instructions
Each group performed three sets of 20 practice shots. And in each set, they were given a different focus instruction, which encouraged them to focus on the swing distance, swing weight, or the outcome of the swing.
For instance, in the swing distance set:
- the internal focus group was asked to “focus on the 1:1 swing ratio of your arms“
- the external focus group was asked to “focus on the 1:1 swing ratio of the club shaft“
In the swing weight set:
- the internal focus group was asked to “focus on the grip pressure of your hands“
- the external focus group was asked to “focus on the weight of the club head“
And in the outcome set:
- the internal focus group was asked to “focus on your force control“
- the external focus group was asked to “focus on the landing point of the ball“
And would these different instructions make any difference in the accuracy of their shotmaking?
How much stuck?
Well, to find out, all of the participants were asked to return to the lab a day later, to see how much of their practice would actually stick.
First, they were given a test of 20 shots at the same 10m distance that they practiced at.
Both the internal and external focus groups improved, and were able to hit the ball closer to the bullseye than they could on the initial test the day before. However, the external focus group improved more, and consistently hit the ball closer to the bullseye than the internal group did.
Would their practice generalize?
And then, to see how much of their practice would generalize to other distances, they were given 20 shot attempts at a new distance of 13m.
Here too, the external focus group had better accuracy scores, and consistently hit the ball closer to the bullseye than the internal group did.
So that’s pretty cool – but there are a couple other details that are pretty important to note too.
The mental and emotional aspect of learning
Shotmaking accuracy is only one aspect of the learning process of course, so the researchers were also curious to see what sort of effect internal or external focus might have on the participants’ self-efficacy and positive and negative affect during practice and testing.
(Self-efficacy being how confident the participants were in their ability to hit the target. And affect being their emotional state or mood.)
And did the different types of attentional focus have any impact on their confidence or mood?
Self-efficacy
Yes, indeed!
With regards to self-efficacy, everyone started out at about the same level of confidence. But when asked again before the test, the external focus group expressed more confidence in their ability to hit the target than the internal group did.
And they tended to be more confident in their ability to hit the 13m target too (though this difference didn’t quite meet statistical significance).
Positive and negative affect
Practicing with an external focus of attention also seemed to contribute to a more positive learning experience.
At the end of practice, participants were asked to rate to what degree they felt a) joyful, b) confident, c) concentrating, d) distressed, e) ashamed, and f) irritable, on a scale of 1-5 (1=very slightly or not at all and 5=extremely).
And interestingly enough, those who practiced with an external focus had higher positive affect ratings and lower negative affect ratings. In other words, the external focus practicers ended their practice session in a more positive emotional state and headspace.
So what are we to make of all of this?
Takeaways
The authors explain that an external focus seems to help with reducing self-consciousness and the tendency to micro-manage the technical mechanics. Which helps us produce more fluid, coordinated, and efficient movements, that utilize more degrees of freedom.
But I think the mental and emotional benefits of this approach to learning are pretty important too!
Because coming out of a practice session seeing yourself improve faster, where you feel more effective and capable, can be really empowering and motivating. And perhaps make you feel more inclined to practice again, rather than avoiding practicing by digitizing your entire collection of scores or cleaning the crumb tray in your toaster oven…
Being able to facilitate a more positive mood and less negative affect during practice and performance practice is also really valuable. Not just because this might help you be more open to practicing again the next day. But because as the authors note in their discussion, previous studies have found positive mood to be associated with improved memory consolidation and enhanced learning on a neuronal level as well.
Take action
What might this look like in practice?
Here are a couple examples from the literature of what an external focus might look like in other sports:
Volleyball: “Shift your weight from the back leg to the front leg while hitting the ball” (internal) vs. “Shift your weight toward the target” (external)
Soccer: “Position your foot below the ball’s midline to lift the ball” (internal) vs. “Strike the ball below its midline to lift it” (external)
Or, in music, rather than focusing on the movements of the shoulder, arm, and hand needed to make a note speak (internal), focusing on the quality of the sound or articulation or how you would like the sound to project to the back of the hall (external) may be more effective. As in this study of singers that we looked at here.
The difference in language can seem subtle at first. But it seems very much worth experimenting with, when you think of not only the potential performance benefits, but how this could help to enhance a student’s mental and emotional experience of learning and performing their instrument as well!
References
An, J., & Wulf, G. (2024). Golf skill learning: An external focus of attention enhances performance and motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 70, 102563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102563
Very interesting. Although, I have no external instrument to fix my attention to (I’m a singer), my body reflects externaly what I do inside it. I found very useful to use a mirror to check whether I look relaxed or not or whether I’m opening too much my mouth. So whatever I fill inside my body I try to fix an external goal also.
Robert – as a singer you DO have an external instrument to fix your attention to – the sound of your voice. While it is true that singing is probably the only physical activity we do that cannot be seen, we do have some guides to help us along the way.
Intrinsic – the “grab” of the body when initiating sound and the relaxed state of the throat.
Extrinsic – the sound itself.
Unfortunately for us singers, we don’t know if we’ve done the process correctly until the sound leaves the body. It’s like not knowing where the fire hose will spray until you turn on the water. You have a general idea of the direction you want it to go (you aim the hose), but you can’t really direct the flow until the water comes blasting out.
My methodology with beginners is to have be more “end result” orientated; to be more focused on what sound they want to make than the process in how they are making it. Similar to this article’s example of “Shift your weight toward the target”. I use familiar language like “picture yourself trying to get someone’s attention across a noisy street”, as opposed to “grab your support muscles, relax the throat, drop the jaw, think a bright resonant sound and project”. For a beginner the latter example is an overwhelming amount of steps to remember, whereas the former is more intuitive based because we’ve all done that at one time in our lives. We already have a muscle memory of this process, (the brain is familiar with it) and therefore goes more into “auto pilot” for the action. Less fear of failure.
My motto is: “Think More and Do Less”
Think more about the sound you want to make and only do what you need to make that happen. Do what you must, but no more.
Kevin Richards
RPM Vocal Studios
With beginning violin students I let them see how when I pull the bow well the string vibrates. Even the youngest students can see how the string looks “fatter” when it vibrates. They can understand the difference between pulling the bow well and letting the bow do whatever it wants. With all ages I always try to demonstrate a good result and a bad result to give a purpose for what I am asking. If the student has a good understanding of the external goal there is much more motivation to do what is necessary for the result.
I have been in therapy to resolve focal dystonia for several years, with very specific instructions for movement of my right hand (I’m a guitarist). Progress was maddeningly slow, until my instructor hit upon the achievement of a full, rich, warm tone as a goal rather than a specific set of movements. I immediately saw an acceleration of improvement towards fixing my technique, so this article makes sense to me.
I would think this applies to the drumming too, so while knowing the bodily motions, it might be best to focus on the way the stick is being manipulated rather than only how my wrists are moving. Will try this today.
This is an interesting and important issue in teaching. I do Alexander work – where the idea is to use language to reprogram basic body movements so that we function as a unified whole with freedom of movement, which leads to better playing and better sound.
It seems that the internal focus approach tends to result in disjointed movement because of the focus on individual parts, and the external focus results in unified movement. It does seem that both approaches are needed in teaching, because often technique problems are a result of one part not doing its job (e.g., wrists need to bend, but many pianists – even young children – stiffen at the wrists when they play).
Both children and adults do seem to respond better to external examples now that you mention it (e.g., the “puppet guy” on the ceiling with a string attached to their wrist picks it up after each note and drops it to play the next, rather than “lift your wrist and let your and dangle and when it drops it should be level, and then lift it again with a dangling hand, etc.) I’m glad that you pointed this out, because it reinforces that although we need to be aware of the internal issues, external examples are most likely to bring about the results we’re looking for with students – and maybe in our own practicing. Thanks!
As an Alexander Technique teacher (and former focal dystonia sufferer), this article hits home in a big way. All of the musicians who have come to me for help with focal dystonias tend to have far too much of an internal focus as they play their instrument. Essentially, they over-focus on one or two specific parts of themselves as they play, micro-managing these parts at the expense of neglecting the whole of themselves. In doing so, they also cut themselves off from the external experience of more fully perceiving the music. In short, they’re inclined to be guided primarily by what it “feels” like to play, and get overly dependent on this feeling sense.
My work with these musicians involves getting them to change their habitual patterns of response as they play, so as to help them better integrate the internal with the external. This doesn’t mean to actively ignore the internal sensations, so much as to simply not be so exclusively guided by them. And yes, much of this change in perception involves getting them to keep their “eye on the ball” (e.g., their sound as it manifests itself in the room) rather than what they’re doing with the “bat” (micromanaging their movements). Not only does this remarkably improve their coordination, but also, deeply enriches their musicial expression, enjoyment and satisfaction. Thanks for such a clearly written, very timely article. Research in the next few years on this topic may very well turn much conventional wisdom about learning motor skills on its head.
I am a fiddler and fiddle teacher and I’ve been finding that the more I have students focus on the sound they are producing and ask them to hear clearly the effect they are trying to produce, the better their progress. After all, in music most of the reason we are moving our bodies the way we do is to produce a particular sound or quality of sound.
It is probably impossible for anyone to completely understand the intricacies and interrelatedness of the body’s separate parts. What we think we do with our hands (which are complicated enough!) is so related to what we do with our arms, shoulders, back,… even feet and weight distribution. I have had better luck in my own teaching by asking students to focus externally and trusting the body parts to all work together with our marvelous brain as the director. Too often have I made the mistake of describing the perfect bow hold, for example, only to have the student end up playing with “the claw.”
I totally agree with the idea of focusing more externally. For one thing, more intense focus on the smaller details of fingers in bow hold, for example, produces too much intensity and the “claw” which Martha V so well describes. For a straight bow, use targets rather than discuss what the arm and hand are doing, and so on. And I really like what Julia Plumb said about focusing primarily on the music and the quality of the sound produced. I have tried to use these concepts in my teaching of cello over a long career, although it took me a while to come to them. The books by Timothy Gallwey about the Inner Game of Tennis from the 1970s were helpful in this, despite the title. Always love what Dr. Noa gets us thinking about.
Another way to teach awareness is with an inclusive model. This is where the performer is aware both internally and externally. The focus changes throughout, but the performer never loses sight of the elements of playing. Performers can adjust effort level at any time so they don’t get caught overworking, diminishing expression. Barbara Conable coined this, Inclusive Awareness. It takes some practice, but is an effective way to uncover reliable technique and beautiful expression, and deal with nerves. In my Body Mapping teaching I enjoy guiding clients through this process and showing them how they can integrate Inclusive Awareness into their playing. The music soars out almost effortlessly.
Whether one credits Timothy Galley, Arnold Jacobs, or even Prof. Harold Hill, the message is approximately the same. It’s the product, not the process, that is a greatest target and goal. AJ used the term “analysis paralysis” when referring to students who overthought the movements in the body/muscles rather than concentrating on the musical product.
I think it goes both ways. In my own playing, sometimes all it takes is a detailed comment about changing my wrist position to fix a problem. Sometimes talking exclusively about the desired effect (external objective?) isn’t enough, especially for older students. Perhaps you can train yourself to stop thinking about the motions of your arms after they become habitual. This is especially useful when correcting bad habits; you HAVE to think be aware of how your body moves in order to be able to change it.
Thanks for this, particularly the links, great evidence for what I’ve been wondering about as I work on and experiment with my own teaching lately (I’m a movement and parkour coach). When I began coaching the majority of cues I gave were internal. For the past year I’ve worked on simplifying my cues, which unintentionally lead me towards external cues. While the changes are anecdotal I have seen much quicker progress in many movements, especially from kids, with the focus on an external objective.
The fine points of form seem to often times require a shift back towards an internal focus, but I’ve found a handful of challenges that have an external goal (staying balanced on a narrow rail while performing a squat) which teach good form because it’s difficult to succeed at it without proper execution.
Perhaps there is an important visual component – one’s eyes can track a free throw arc, an arrow flying at a target, a bow moving across a string. When asked to make specific motions with your body, you can’t necessarily see the motion of your back, your shoulder, etc. A mirror may help somewhat but there is the reversal aspect.
I totally agree with the points made in the article and comments. Learning to listen to the effect you are trying to produce certainly makes a lot of intuitive sense, and it seems that often the body will naturally mold itself to that outward goal we envision. But Joanna’s comment about the refining by attention to details really resonated with me, also. I have found that, especially as an older student, I may practice something particularly difficult over and over, with no results, or unsatisfactory results, and feel that I’m “hitting a wall” by doing the same thing repeatedly, and getting the same poor outcome. Then my teacher will, on occasion, point out a specific technique to use, such as a quick release & return of the thumb after the 4th note in an arpeggio (Chopin Etude No. 1) or focusing on allowing the upper body to sway with the rolling tide of covering 6 octaves and crossing arms (Liszt Un Sospiro). Sometimes this specific body-focused instruction will provide a key breakthrough that unlocks the path to improvement.
Again, I do totally agree with Dr. Noa’s observations overall. But I also wonder whether this is more contextual, by which I mean focusing on the external global effects initially, until a basic sense and feel for the piece is achieved. Then later on, attention to a more refined, detailed technique is needed, once the essential feel has become comfortable.
Well put, Cindy. Ultimately, I think it’s both. My impression is that we will constantly be cycling through periods of internal focus and external focus as we proceed through the various stages of motor learning in an iterative fashion.
Yes Dr. Noa. We go through stages of “awareness” – both internal and external as the brain tweaks the processes we are giving the brain as we train. “Bodily conscious” I believe is the correct neuroscience term. The brain focuses externally while we train and then goes into internal focus as it correlates all those new synaptic instruction. The “Plateau and Mountain” cycle of learning.
Conscious thought and then subconscious motion. “In the zone” as it applies to sports.
[…] original do Noa Kageyama, PhD — Learn Quicker by Thinking Less about What Your Body is Doing. Tradução: Bruno […]
I agree that externally-focused instruction produces better short-term results, but I think Dr. Kageyama will agree with me: playing any instrument (learning healthy vocal technique is even harder) involves developing movements that were previously unfamiliar. As such, all that externally-focused instruction does is just show a person how to use familiar movements to achieve certain results. There’s a certain sense in which the person has acquired nothing new, only a new way of using what they already had. In order to access the best sound possible on any instrument (especially voice!), or perhaps to bring their playing (or singing) to another level, they need to develop movements they may never have felt proprioceptively or even noticed visually in someone else’s playing. I’m a big stickler for this part of learning because I want to burst every time I see my fellow students trying to force some result using movements that interfere with their desired result. Sometimes, these movements are even good for doing the exact opposite of what they want. They try harder and harder with these movements, which of course only pushes them farther and farther away from the sound they want.
Therefore, with my own students and when I exchange tips with my colleagues, I harp relentlessly on the relationship between technique and sound. How does the movement feel, and what sound do you get when you do it that way? If you use a similar motion with one or two things different about it, how does it feel different, and what does it change about the sound? If I run into a situation where I can’t figure out how to make the sound I want (and sometimes that’s playing a run fast enough), sometimes I just flop my hands and arms around a bit just to see what kind of sounds I get. Sometimes it makes me feel childish, but actually I am in precisely the position of a child – unfamiliarity. What do curious children do? They ask questions and experiment (or play around) to see how the system works. Through repetition they recognize patterns, what happens if they do A and what happens differently if they do B. I find patient experimentation to be effective in practicing leaps. I practice missing the leap by specific intervals so that my muscles learn what a 12th feels like, as opposed to a 13th or an 11th. Come performance time, I can trust them to draw up the motion for a 12th and not either of the other two similar motions because they are familiar with the difference in the resulting sound. When we want to learn a piece, is not practice the thing we turn to? Why should not practice then be about learning?
All that to say that avoiding internal focus is a recipe for running yourself or your students into a plateau. It’s probably the best solution if you intend only to develop the skill minimally, but even a person who wants to develop an amateur ability in a musical instrument should take a slower approach which focuses on the relationship between internal and external elements. As for the little Kageyamas, they might have been much less frustrated and much more interested if they were more focused on what their bodies felt like and how the ball moves differently if they stand the way their dad told them to 😉
Elliot – Of course. Experimentation is the key to true understanding of one’s abilities. “Having no style as style. No limitation as limitation.”
In training the voice we focus on mostly internal sensation. What did it feel like? Where did I feel it? And if I play around with those sensations, what is the result? If I do more less of this, do I get that sound? Voice training is A LOT of trial and error since we are tweaking an end result.
Since the voice is an instrument that cannot be seen or tweaked until we make a sound, focusing on internal sensations is key to developing awareness of how to manipulate the very complex coordinations associated with proper voice technique. In many respects making very odd sounds can lead a singer to discover ways of making sound they have never experienced before.
In voice training, the idea is to simplify the physical coordinations as much as possible so that the brain can do all the miniscule tweaks on its own the way it was designed to do. We “think” the sound we wish to create, breath into that thought and listen/see/fell the result. Each time we do those steps, the brain tweaks the process ever so slightly to try to get the desired thought.
Our motto at RPM Vocal Studios is “Think More. Do Less.”
Thanks for this addition to the post, Elliot! Well put and very nicely articulated. There’s a point where we really do need to have a deeper understanding of the mechanisms involved in order to take things to a higher level – as much as I enjoyed the Inner Game of Tennis as a kid, not knowing the mechanics of how to hit a high-bouncing backhand makes it difficult to rely on with any sort of consistency…though I can’t say that I’m all that successful in hitting it anyway!
[…] Learn Quicker by Thinking Less about What Your Body Is Doing […]
I am a jazz guitarist. Recently I took a lesson with Gypsy jazz guitar master, Gonzalo Bergara. His picking technique is unreal and he gets an amazing tone. When we talked about picking movements he said that you must focus your attention to the tip of the pick. When I started talking about wrist movement, and he waved it off, and said, as long as it wasn’t extreme or hurting you, not to bother with it. That it will take care of itself. Much like the Alexander Technique concepts, get out of your body’s way and let it do it. It can do it better than your “thinking” mind.