Perceptual & Motor Skills: Motor Skills & Ergonomics 2014, 119, 1, 156-168. © Perceptual & Motor Skills 2014

NOISE DISTRACTION AND MENTAL PRACTICE IN CLOSED AND OPEN MOTOR SKILLS1 HYUNJEONG JEON, JINGU KIM, ASIF ALI, AND SUNGMOK CHOI Kyungpook National University, Korea Summary.—Two experiments were conducted to investigate whether mental practice can serve as an effective intervention strategy for decreasing interference effects of distracting noise at the time of executing open (badminton service return) and closed (badminton serve) skills. In Experiment 1, 44 male students participated and in Experiment 2, 36 students participated. In both experiments, students were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) mental practice, (b) mental practice plus noise distraction (MPD), and (c) control. All participants performed 40 trials in the acquisition phase and 20 trials in the retention phase. Absolute error and adjusted variable error were recorded to measure performance. Experiment 1 showed that for a closed skill, the MPD group served with greater accuracy than did the control group in both acquisition and retention phases. Experiment 2 showed that for the open skill, the MP group performed with less error than did the control group, but only in the acquisition trials. Results indicate that mental practice may function to block out noise disturbances and that mental practice may work differently with different skill sets.

Researchers generally agree with the notion that distractors such as noise or light may potentially affect learners psychologically and impede motor performance (Siu, Suh, Mukherjee, Oleynikov, & Stergiou, 2010). Thus, for successful performance, learners need to shut out such distracting stimuli if they affect motor performance (Lee, Chung, Kim, & Lee, 2002). Such distractors can be classified into external and internal factors, where external factors include noise, light, layout of sports arena, and movement of spectators; whereas internal factors include fear of being judged, self-doubt, excessive self-consciousness, and anxiety (Singer, Cauraugh, Murphey, Tennant, Chen, & Lidor, 1991). Due to the negative effects of distractors on motor performance, some researchers have tried to develop and utilize programs to increase athletic performance by focusing concentration and decreasing attention to the distractors. A study by Lee, et al. (2002) has shown that cognitive learning strategies, focused on controlling factors that interfere with performance execution (e.g., noise and light), can have positive effects on learning. These cognitive strategies minimize the interfering factors by allowing the athletes to focus their attention better. Lidor, Tennant, and Singer (1996) l Address correspondence to Jingu Kim, Department of Physical Education, Kyungpook National University, 80 Daehakro, Bukgu, Daegu, 702-701, South Korea or e-mail (jigkim@ knu.ac.kr).

DOI 10.2466/25.23.PMS.119c14z7

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 156

ISSN 0031-5125

02/08/14 8:47 AM

NOISE DISTRACTION, MENTAL PRACTICE

157

studied meta-cognitive strategies and reported that such strategies resulted in performance enhancement, relaxation, and maintenance of appropriate stimulation improvement. Mental practice is one of many cognitive strategies commonly used in sports settings and has been successfully applied by many professional athletes to control mental focus, control distractors, and ultimately improve performance (Jeon, Kim, & Chung, 2005). Previous studies involving mental practice or imagery have demonstrated several effects that could potentially benefit performance. For instance, mental practice or imagery can increase confidence and relaxation (Kudlackova, Eccles, & Dieffenbach, 2013), decrease tension and anxiety (Casement & Swanson, 2012), decrease stress (Arora, Aggarwal, Moran, Sirimanna, Crochet, Darzi, et al., 2011), increase motivation (Stanley, Cumming, Standage, & Duda, 2012), and increase concentration (de'Sperati & Deubel, 2006). Previous investigations show that one of the important functions of mental practice is to foster both concentration and attention while performing a motor task. Thus, mental practice appears to play an important role in overcoming internal and external distractors and increasing performance. Therefore, one of the purposes of this study is to investigate the use of mental practice for increasing performance and concentration by blocking out distractions. Researchers have suggested that imagery or intervention strategy can significantly block out or minimize the occurrence of distraction triggered by noise and light, which in turn fosters performance and learning of movement skills (Singer, et al., 1991). In addition, Jeon, et al. (2005) found that use of mental practice can nullify the interference of distracting auditory and visual stimuli, and improve motor learning in a golf-putting task. However, characteristics of open and closed motor skills are different and could be an important factor with regard to effectiveness of imagery in motor performance (Weinberg, 2008; Yu, Fu, & Chan, 2013). For example, open skills (e.g., badminton service return) are generally more variable, unpredictable, and externally paced. In contrast, closed skills (e.g., badminton serve) are more predictable, stable, and self-paced (McBride & Rothstein, 1979). Coelho, Campos, Silva, Okazaki, and Keller (2007) found that imagery is more useful in enhancing performance of a closed motor skill (tennis serve) than an open motor skill (tennis service return). On the other hand, ArvinenBarrow, Weigand, Thomas, Hemmings, and Walley (2007) found that mental imagery had more beneficial effects for open motor skills (rugby, martial arts) than closed motor skills (golf, figure skating). These findings suggest that the two types of skills differ, and the literature is not consistent regarding the effectiveness of mental imagery for performance enhancement. Watt, Spittle, Jaakkola, and Morris (2008) emphasized that the functionality of imagery largely depends upon the type of task.

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 157

02/08/14 8:47 AM

158

H. JEON, ET AL.

Taken together, these findings raise some questions with regard to potential effects of mental practice on the performance of motor skills. More specifically, the effects of mental practice may not be the same for open and closed skills. In the case of serve and serve return skills, the effectiveness of mental practice may vary depending on predictable and unpredictable conditions. Additionally, to what extent mental practice can eliminate the interfering effects of noise in open and closed skills performance remains unclear. To address these questions, the current study examined whether mental practice is effective for reducing interference of distractors during execution of both open and closed motor tasks. Imagery can control the concentration exerted on a given task (Kosslyn, Ganis, & Thompson, 2001; Lee, et al., 2002), which could offset noise distraction and help overcome interference generated by auditory and visual distractors (Jeon, et al., 2005). Hypothesis. Mental practice reduces the interfering effects of noise during the performance of both open and closed motor skills. Experiment 1: Closed Skill METHOD Participants Forty-four right-handed male college students whose ages ranged from 19 to 27 yr. (M = 23.3 yr., SD = 2.0), who were naive to the experimental task, voluntarily took part in this experiment. They were given extra course credit as compensation. Eight participants were excluded due to their inability to generate vivid mental imagery based on the Questionnaire upon Mental Imagery. Finally, 36 participants who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) a mental practice group (MP), (2) a mental practice plus noise distraction group (MPD), and (3) a control group (irrelevant imagery). The three groups did not differ significantly with regard to QMI scores. This study was approved by the university's Institutional Review Board. Measure of Imagery Ability A shortened version of the Questionnaire upon Mental Imagery (QMI), developed by Sheehan (1967), was administered to assess the participants' imagery ability, and was further used as a screening process to recruit the participants for the current experiment. The QMI has 35 items. Participants use a rating scale with anchors 1: “perfectly clear and as vivid as the actual experience” and 7: “no image present at all” (p. 387). The possible range of scores is 35 to 245, with low scores indicating more vivid imagery ability. An example item is, “How clear and vivid do you see the various colors of clothes that are worn often?” The shortened version of the QMI

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 158

02/08/14 8:47 AM

NOISE DISTRACTION, MENTAL PRACTICE

159

has been shown to be reliable (Cronbach's α = .91). Validity of the questionnaire has been supported by many researchers (e.g., Compos, 2005; Nelis, Holmes, Griffith, & Raes, 2014). Task The criterion task used in Experiment 1 was the badminton serve. Participants were instructed to serve a badminton shuttlecock into a cylindrical target (12 cm high, 7 cm diameter). The target was a 5 × 5 m square grid with lines drawn lengthwise and crosswise at 5 cm intervals. The cylindrical target was located at the center of the target. The target was situated at a distance of 10 m away from the service line and diagonally across the center line, opposite of the server. Procedure Upon arriving at the laboratory, all participants first received information pertinent to the nature of the experiment before signing informed consent forms. Each participant received instruction from a professional badminton player on the proper execution of a badminton serve. They then practiced two serves prior to beginning the experiment. To begin the experiment, each participant completed a mental practice program (Table 1). After completing the mental practice program, participants performed a four-block acquisition phase and a two-block retention phase. Each block consisted of 10 serves, for a total of 60 serves. One-min breaks were given between blocks. During this 1-min break, the subjects in the MP and MPD groups were asked to practice imagining the serve, while participants in the control group were asked to imagine various animals. Between the acquisition and retention phases, participants viewed a 10 min video of nonbadminton related footage from a soccer game. Unique to the MPD group, a 75 dB distractor noise was present during serves in the four blocks of the acquisition phase.2 During the two blocks of the retention phase, all participants performed the badminton serve without the presence of a 75 dB distractor noise and mental practice. Dependent measures were absolute error (AE) for accuracy and adjusted variable error (VE) for consistency. AE and VE were measured by using Kim, Chung, Tennant, Singer, and Janelle's (2000) 2-dimensional (2D) error measurement method. Mental Practice Program The mental practice program consisted of relaxation, video watching, and mental practice for 8 min. During the program, participants were instructed to relax for 5 min. watch a badminton service video for 2 min. (visual imagery), and then perform mental practice for 1 min. The MP and To generate noise, a rock song repeatedly played on a cassette recorder placed on the right and 3 m from the participant. 2

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 159

02/08/14 8:47 AM

160

H. JEON, ET AL. TABLE 1 MENTAL PRACTICE STAGES AND CONTENTS

Order

Stage

Content

Time (min.)

1

Relaxation Place the participant in a quiet place with no noise and ask her/him to sit comfortably and breathe deeply to be in a calm state.

5

2

Watching Show a video of a national badminton player: his grip of video a racket and a shuttlecock, his basic strokes, serve motions for Experiment 1, and returning serve motions for Experiment 2. The irrelevant imagery group watched a video of 20 different animals for 2 min.

2

3

Imagery

1

Ask the participants to visualize themselves performing a serve for Experiment 1 (closed skill) and returning a serve for Experiment 2 (open skill). The irrelevant imagery group was provided with general imagery information and evoked images of animals for 1 min.

MPD groups were instructed to imagine proper performance of the badminton serve. In contrast, the control group was instructed to think of various animals (20 animals). The video watching and mental practice stages of the program were repeated three times. The total time used, including relaxation, was 14 min. A questionnaire was used to ensure that participants were actively imagining as instructed. Experimental Design and Analysis For acquisition and retention phases, separate 3 × 4 (Groups × Trial Blocks) and 3 × 2 (Groups × Trial Blocks) ANOVAs with repeated-measures on the last factor were conducted for AE and VE on service performance. A Tukey HSD post hoc test was conducted to identify significant differences between the groups and significant differences between the blocks. The threshold for statistical significance was set at α = .05. SPSS Version 18 was used for statistical analyses. RESULTS The three groups showed no difference on QMI scores, indicating that there were no differences in mental imagery ability (F2, 33 = 0.17, ns). Absolute Error During the acquisition phase, there was a main effect of group (F2, 33 = 4.31, p < .05, η2p= 0.11), a main effect of block (F3, 99 = 4.31, p < .01, η2p = 0.12), and no statistically significant interaction (F6, 99 = 0.78, p > .05, η2p = 0.05) (Table 2). The post hoc analysis for the group main effect revealed that the MP group and the MPD group had lower AEs than the control group (Cohen's d = 0.89). The post hoc test for the block main effect revealed that Block 4 had lower AEs than Blocks 1 (Cohen's d = 0.52) and 2 (Cohen's d = 0.003).

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 160

02/08/14 8:47 AM

161

NOISE DISTRACTION, MENTAL PRACTICE

TABLE 2 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ABSOLUTE ERRORS AND VARIABLE ERRORS ACROSS TRIAL BLOCKS AND GROUPS Acquisition Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Block 4

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Group M

11.37

2.15

9.91

3.26

10.58

3.83

10.24

3.16

10.52*

9.95

1.31

9.70

2.50

8.78

2.30

8.78

1.60

Control 13.26

2.90

12.69

3.30

11.76

3.75

11.21

3.54

12.23

8.46

M Closed skill Absolute error MP MPD

9.30*

Blocks 3, 4 > Block 1; MP, MPD > Control Variable error MP

8.76

2.05

8.24

2.97

7.93

1.92

8.92

2.34

MPD

8.24

1.57

7.46

2.16

7.70

1.55

7.38

1.59

7.69

Control

9.47

2.60

9.99

2.70

9.06

3.92

8.90

3.80

9.35

12.35

Open skill Absolute error MP

14.81

2.37

12.50

2.69

11.45

2.00

10.67

2.02

MPD

14.06

3.44

12.15

2.95

11.63

2.16

11.59

2.55

12.35

Control 15.07

2.10

12.98

2.92

13.29

2.09

13.02

1.68

13.59

Block 4 > Block 1 Variable error MP

11.89

2.01

11.15

2.58

10.06

1.91

9.78

1.93

10.72*

MPD

11.44

1.90

11.09

2.66

10.08

2.42

10.03

1.82

10.66*

Control

13.46

2.23

11.94

3.01

12.22

1.90

10.63

2.40

12.06

Block 4 > Block 1; MP, MPD > Control Retention Block 1

Block 2

M

SD

M

SD

Group M

12.23

4.44

10.63

3.19

11.43

8.52

1.57

8.55

1.75

10.96

3.71

10.71

3.43

Closed skill Absolute error MP MPD Control

8.53* 10.83

MPD > MP Control (continued on next page) Note.—AE = absolute error, VE = variable error, MP = mental practice, MPD = mental practice + noise distraction. *p < .05.

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 161

02/08/14 8:47 AM

162

H. JEON, ET AL.

TABLE 2 (CONT’D) MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ABSOLUTE ERRORS AND VARIABLE ERRORS ACROSS TRIAL BLOCKS AND GROUPS Retention Block 1

Block 2

M

SD

M

SD

Group M

MP

9.58

2.54

9.31

2.50

9.44*

MPD

7.35

1.49

7.11

1.18

7.23*

Control

8.98

2.83

9.21

2.41

9.09

10.95

Variable error

MPD > MP Control Open skill Absolute error MP

11.71

2.29

10.20

1.66

MPD

11.16

2.64

11.98

2.00

11.57

Control

10.93

2.53

12.98

1.12

11.95

10.31

Block 2 > Block 1 Variable error MP

10.98

1.99

9.63

1.41*

MPD

8.73

2.61

11.42

1.98

10.08

Control

9.32

3.05

11.33

1.45

10.32

Block 2 > Block 1 Note.—AE = absolute error, VE = variable error, MP = mental practice, MPD = mental practice + noise distraction. *p < .05.

The analysis of the AE in the retention phase showed a main effect of group (F2, 33 = 3.32, p < .05, η2p = .17). However, the main effect of block was not significant (F1, 33 = 1.84, p > .05, η2p = 0.05), nor was the interaction between group and block (F2, 33 = 1.29, p > .05, η2p = 0.07) (Table 2). The post hoc analysis indicated that the MPD group had lower AEs than the MP (Cohen's d = 0.98) and control groups (Cohen's d = 0.82). Variable Error In the acquisition phase, VE showed no statistically significant main effect of group (F2, 33 = 2.20, p > .05, η2p = 0.12), nor of block (F3, 99 = 0.61, p > .05, η2p = 0.02), nor of their interaction (F6, 99 = 0.65, p > .05, η2p = 0.04) (Table 2). In the retention phase, VE analysis showed a main effect of group (F2, 33 = 3.84, p < .05, η p2 = 0.20). However, it showed no significant main effect of block (F2, 33 = 0.08, p > .05, η p2 = 0.003), nor interaction effect (F2, 33 = 0.26, p > .05, η p2 = 0.02) (Table 2). The post hoc analysis showed that the MPD group had significantly lower VE than the MP group and control group (Cohen's d = 1.01).

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 162

02/08/14 8:47 AM

NOISE DISTRACTION, MENTAL PRACTICE

163

Experiment 2: Open Skill METHOD The second experiment was conducted to assess whether mental practice can serve as an effective intervention strategy for decreasing interference effects at the time of executing badminton service return (open skill). Participants Thirty-six right-handed college students (18 women, 18 men) between the ages of 18 and 22 yr. (M = 21.1, SD = 2.1) volunteered for Experiment 2. None of the participants had ever had any badminton experience. Similar to Experiment 1, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: MP group, MPD group, and control group. All participants gave written informed consent and the protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Task The criterion task used in Experiment 2 was returning a badminton serve. The same target was used as in Experiment 1. However, participants were instructed to return a served badminton shuttlecock into the cylindrical target. Shuttlecocks were served to the participant by an expert badminton player on the opposite side of the court. To minimize anticipation, serves were directed at one of three randomly chosen locations on the participant's side of the court. If participants missed the serve completely, they received a second chance. Error and Imagery Ability Measures Performance error and imagery ability measurements were the same as in Experiment 1. Procedure The same apparatus and procedure were used as in Experiment 1, except that participants were asked to return the shuttlecock rather than serving it. In addition, participants were requested to imagine returning the shuttlecock while conducting the imagery program. Experimental Design and Analysis The same analysis and design were used as in Experiment 1. RESULTS The three groups showed no difference on QMI scores, indicating there were no differences in mental practice scores between the groups (F2, 33 = 0.05, p > .05, η2p = 0.003). Absolute Error In the acquisition phase, there was no significant main effect of group (F2, 33 = 2.34 p > .05, η2p = 0.12), nor interaction effect between the group and

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 163

02/08/14 8:47 AM

164

H. JEON, ET AL.

block (F6, 99 = 0.73, p > .05, η p2 = 0.003). However, AE showed a main effect of blocks (F3, 33 = 12.87, p < .001, η p2 = 0.35). A follow-up test indicated that performance during the acquisition trial Block 4 was significantly better than in trial Block 1 (Cohen's d = 1.20) (Table 2). In the retention phase, analysis of AE showed no significant main effect of group (F2, 33 = 1.14, p > .05, η p2 = 0.07) nor block (F1, 33 = 1.04, p > .05, η p2 = 0.03). However, there was a statistically significant interaction of group and block (F2, 33 = 5.39, p < .01, η p2 = 0.25). The post hoc analysis showed that MP group's AE decreased in Block 2 compared to Block 1 (Cohen's d = .0.75); whereas AE increased in the control group (Cohen's d = 1.03). Descriptive statistics for each group are shown in Table 2. Variable Error In the acquisition phase, VE analysis showed a main effect of group (F2, 33 = 4.62, p < .05, η p2 = 0.22) and a main effect of block (F3, 33 = 5.58, p < .01, η p2 = 0.09). However, it showed no statistically significant interaction effect between group and block (F6, 99 = 0.43, p > .05, η p2 = 0.03). The post hoc test indicated that both MP and MPD groups performed significantly better than the control group (Cohen's d = 0.61) (Table 2). In the retention phase, the analysis of VE showed no significant main effect of group (F2, 33 = 0.90, p > .05, η p2 = 0.01). However, there was a main effect of block (F1, 33 = 5.23, p < .05, η p2 = 0.14) and an interaction of group and block (F2, 33 = 6.61, p < .01, η p2 = 0.29) (Table 2). The post hoc analysis showed that the MP group's VE decreased in Block 2 compared to Block 1 (Cohen's d = 0.73), whereas the MP and MPD groups had increased VE from Block 1 to Block 2 (Cohen's d = 0.89). DISCUSSION Two experiments were conducted to assess the effects of mental practice on the performance of a closed motor skill and an open motor skill. A distraction condition during acquisition was added to increase understanding of whether mental practice helps block distractions during performance. Experiment 1 showed that the MPD group demonstrated greater badminton serve accuracy than did the control group in both acquisition and retention stages. Experiment 2 showed that the MP group performed with less serve return error than did the control group, but only for the acquisition trials. The results of Experiment 1 showed that the performance of motor skills in the MPD group was better compared to the control group during the acquisition phase despite noise exposure. One possible interpretation of this result is that mental practice may reinforce the main stimulus (i.e., task completion) while lessening the effect of minor auditory stimuli. This interpretation is rooted in previous studies that found different amounts or intensities of minor stimuli can reinforce

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 164

02/08/14 8:47 AM

NOISE DISTRACTION, MENTAL PRACTICE

165

the main stimulus. The present study supports the findings of Jeon, et al. (2005), showing that minor light and noise distractors could be controlled by mental practice but an 86 dB noise level could not. They concluded that an excessive level of a distractor stimulus hinders performance. In addition, the results of the present study are similar to Lee, et al. (2002), in which participants using a meta-cognitive strategy (mental imagery prior to shooting while experiencing visual and audio distractions) were able to shut out distractions and improve performance. These findings provide support that mental practice can function to block out disturbances. The analysis of the retention phase showed that the MPD group had lower VEs than the control group. The noise level used in this experiment was 75 dB, between the levels of road noise (70 dB) and railroad noise (80 dB). Constant exposure to this level of noise can decrease concentration (Witterseh, Wyon, & Clausen, 2004). The results indicated that mental practice was effective for retention of the closed motor skill. Mental practice may stimulate recall on the task while participants performed the badminton serves during the retention phase. It is believed that mental practice helped the learners to retain and recall the skill more effectively and deal with any potential distractors during retention. Taktek, Zinsser, and StJohn (2008) supported this notion; their results showed the potential benefits of mental practice as a retention strategy intended for motor skills and performance enhancement. The current study showed that performance did not significantly decrease, even though participants were asked to serve the shuttlecock under 75 dB noise, which is taken as evidence supporting mental practice as an appropriate intervention strategy to control attention. Psychological resistance is another potential explanation for the results of this experiment. Studying noise and performance, Turner, Fernandez, and Nelson (1996) stated that a noise level of 80 dB can lead to decreased performance on a motor reaction task where the participants were required to respond to an unpredictable visual stimulus. Furnham and Strbac (2002) and Banbury and Berry (2005) found that even noise in an average office setting can interrupt concentration. Despite the argument by Turner, et al. (1996) that noise interferes with performance, the performance of the current noise distraction group increased. Ebert, Tucker, and Roth (2002) indicated that if psychological resistance factors are viewed as personal resources, they could be expected to lead to more effective coping, resulting in a decrease in perceived stress. It could be that mental practice can strengthen psychological resistance to overcome interference, such as noise. In Experiment 2, the results showed that the MP and MPD groups had lower VEs than the control group, indicating that mental practice improves performance consistency in the badminton serve return. The findings of this study do not support the previous investigation demonstrating

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 165

02/08/14 8:47 AM

166

H. JEON, ET AL.

that mental imagery is more effective in a closed skill (tennis serve) than an open skill (tennis serve return) (Coelho, et al., 2007). Mental practice has the potential to improve performance in open skills as well, although previous studies indicated that closed motor skills are more predictable and therefore easier not only to control but also to imagine mentally (McBride & Rothstein, 1979). Interestingly, however, mental practice was effective for performing a motor skill in an unpredictable condition. Regardless of whether it involves closed or open skills, mental practice may be useful in improving sports performance due to its ability to lessen the effect of distracting factors such as noise or light. Furthermore, AE and VE analysis in the acquisition phase showed that the MP group performed the badminton serve return more accurately as well as with less variability than the control group. In addition, the MP group had lower VEs than the MPD and control groups in the acquisition phase. However, the MPD and control groups had lower VEs than the MP group during the retention phase. This result can be explained by the differential performance and acquisition of closed vs. open motor skills. Open skills require quick anticipation, judgment, adjustment, and information processing, because unlike closed skills they are executed in dynamic situations that minimize anticipation (Singer, 2000). Accordingly, the MPD group may have had improved learning in the retention phase due to the particular nature of open skills (not easily predictable) as in the badminton serve return. An interesting finding is that the MPD group outperformed the MP group during the retention phase. This result suggests that minor distracting stimuli may benefit performance, as shown in Experiment 1. In addition, Coelho, et al. (2007) noted that open motor skills were more variable and reactive to specific game situations; therefore, it is not easy for athletes to image open skills exactly. Closed skills lend themselves to more accurate and effective mental practice. In this experiment, mental practice did not positively affect learning of the badminton serve return in the retention phase, perhaps because mental practice of open skills may put higher demands on cognition and information processing. Examples of this increased demand include discerning the location of a moving target and dynamic visual acuity (Knudson & Morrison, 2002). In the serve return, it was more difficult for participants to judge the movement of the shuttlecock due to unpredictability. Accordingly, as anticipation and adjustment time decrease, it may lead to observed decreases in VE for open skills. Conclusion In conclusion, mental practice helped to overcome noise distraction and improved performance and learning of a badminton serve. For the closed skill, mental practice seemed to decrease absolute and variable error in the acquisition and retention phases; for the simple open skill in this

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 166

02/08/14 8:47 AM

NOISE DISTRACTION, MENTAL PRACTICE

167

study, mental practice was effective in the acquisition phase, but not at the retention phase, compared to the control group. Thus, mental practice may function differently for open and closed motor skills. These findings suggest that, in addition to its benefits in confidence, concentration, motivation, and neutralizing nervousness (Short, Bruggeman, Engel, Marback, Wang, Willadsen, et al., 2002; Thelwell & Maynard, 2002), mental practice might diminish or block out external interference from noise. Finally, the effectiveness of mental practice may vary depending on the complexity and difficulty of the motor skill. REFERENCES

ARORA, S., AGGARWAL, R., MORAN, A., SIRIMANNA, P., CROCHET, P., DARZI, A., KNEEBONE, R., & SEVDALIS, N. (2011) Mental practice: effective stress management training for novice surgeons. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 212, 225-233. ARVINEN-BARROW, M., WEIGAND, D. A., THOMAS, S., HEMMINGS, B., & WALLEY, M. (2007) Elite and novice athletes' imagery use in open and closed sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1), 93-104. BANBURY, S. P., & BERRY, D. C. (2005) Office noise and employee concentration: identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements. Ergonomics, 48, 25-37. CASEMENT, M. D., & SWANSON, L. M. (2012) A meta-analysis of imagery rehearsal for post-trauma nightmares: effects on nightmare frequency, sleep quality, and posttraumatic stress. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 566-574. COELHO, R. W., CAMPOS, W. D., SILVA, S. G. D., OKAZAKI, F. H. A., & KELLER, B. (2007) Imagery intervention in open and closed tennis motor skill performance. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 105, 458-468. COMPOS, A. (2005) The Spanish version of Betts' Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery. Psychological Reports, 96, 51-56. DE'SPERATI, C., & DEUBEL, H. (2006) Mental extrapolation of motion modulates responsiveness to visual stimuli. Vision Research, 46, 2593-2601. EBERT, S. A., TUCKER, D. C., & ROTH, D. S. (2002) Psychological resistance factors as predictors of general health status and physical symptom reporting. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 7(3), 363-375. FURNHAM, A., & STRBAC, L. (2002) Music is as distracting as noise: the differential distraction of background music and noise on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Ergonomics, 45, 203-217. JEON, H., KIM, J., & CHUNG, S. (2005) The effects of visual imagery on the control of visual and auditory distractors. The Korean Journal of Physical Education, 44, 139-148. KIM, J., CHUNG, S., TENNANT, L. K., SINGER, R. N., & JANELLE, C. M. (2000) Minimizing error in measurement of error: a proposed method for calculation of error in a twodimensional motor task. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 90, 253-261. KNUDSON, D., & MORRISON, C. (2002) Qualitative analysis of human movement. (2nd ed.) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. KOSSLYN, S. M., GANIS, G., & THOMPSON, W. L. (2001) Neural foundations of imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 635-642. KUDLACKOVA, K., ECCLES, D. W., & DIEFFENBACH, K. (2013) Use of relaxation skills in differentially skilled athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 468-475.

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 167

02/08/14 8:47 AM

168

H. JEON, ET AL.

LEE, H., CHUNG, S., KIM, J., & LEE, A. (2002) The effects of meta-cognitive learning strategy on the control of visual auditory distractors. Korean Journal of Sport Psychology, 13, 177-185. LIDOR, R., TENNANT, K. L., & SINGER, R. N. (1996) The generalizability effect of three learning strategies across motor task performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 23-36. MCBRIDE, E. R., & ROTHSTEIN, A. L. (1979) Mental and physical practice and the learning and retention of open and closed skills. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 49, 359-365. NELIS, S., HOLMES, E. A., GRIFFITH, J. W., & RAES, F. (2014) Mental imagery during daily life: psychometric evaluation of the Spontaneous Use of Imagery Scale (SUIS). Psychologica Belgica, 54, 19-32. SHEEHAN, P. W. (1967) A shortened form of Betts' Questionnaire Upon Mental Imagery. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 386-389. SHORT, S. E., BRUGGEMAN, J. M., ENGEL, S. G., MARBACK, T. L., WANG, L. J., WILLADSEN, A., & SHORT, M. W. (2002) The effect of imagery function and imagery direction on selfefficacy and performance on a golf-putting task. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 48-67. SINGER, R. N. (2000) Performance and human factors: considerations about cognition and attention for self-paced and externally-paced events. Ergonomics, 43, 1661-1680. SINGER, R. N., CAURAUGH, J. H., MURPHEY, M., TENNANT, L. K., CHEN, D., & LIDOR, R. (1991) Attention and distractors: consideration for enhancing sport performances. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 95-114. SIU, K. C., SUH, I. H., MUKHERJEE, M., OLEYNIKOV, D., & STERGIOU, N. (2010) The impact of environmental noise on robot-assisted laparoscopic surgical performance. Surgery, 147, 107-113. STANLEY, D. M., CUMMING, J., STANDAGE, M., & DUDA, J. L. (2012) Images of exercising: exploring the links between exercise imagery use, autonomous and controlled motivation to exercise, and exercise intention and behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 133-141. TAKTEK, K., ZINSSER, N., & ST-JOHN, B. (2008) Visual versus kinesthetic mental imagery: efficacy for the retention and transfer of a closed motor skill in young children. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(3), 174-187. THELWELL, R. C., & MAYNARD, I. W. (2002) A triangulation of findings of three studies investigating repeatable good performance in professional cricketers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 247-268. TURNER, M. L., FERNANDEZ, J. E., & NELSON, K. (1996) The effect of music amplitude on the reaction to unexpected visual events. The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 51-62. WATT, A. P., SPITTLE, M., JAAKKOLA, T., & MORRIS, T. (2008) Adopting Paivio's general analytic framework to examine imagery use in sport. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 3, 1-15. WEINBERG, R. (2008) Does imagery work? Effects on performance and mental skills. Journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity, 3, 1-21. WITTERSEH, T., WYON, D. P., & CLAUSEN, G. (2004) The effects of moderate heat stress and open-plan office noise distraction on SBS symptoms and on the performance of office work. Indoor Air, 14, 30-40. YU, Q. H., FU, A. S. N., & CHAN, C. C. H. (2013) Influence of sport type and skill level on visual imagery perspectives of young athletes. Hong Kong Physiotherapy Journal, 31, 51. Accepted June 9, 2014.

14-PMS_Jeon_140049.indd 168

02/08/14 8:47 AM

Noise distraction and mental practice in closed and open motor skills.

Two experiments were conducted to investigate whether mental practice can serve as an effective intervention strategy for decreasing interference effe...
157KB Sizes 4 Downloads 3 Views