How Attentional Focus Impacts Motor Learning and Performance: A Guide for Personal Trainers

Attentional focus—whether internal or external—is crucial in movement execution and skill acquisition. For personal trainers, understanding the impact of cueing strategies on client performance is essential for optimizing motor learning. While research has traditionally favored external focus (EF) over internal focus (IF), emerging studies suggest that the efficacy of cueing depends on individual differences, task complexity, and skill level. This article critically examines the nuances of attentional focus and provides practical insights for personal trainers.

What’s the Difference Between External and Internal Cueing?

External and internal cueing stem from attentional focus, a phenomenon in which shifting the focus of attention affects performance. In short, external cueing draws focus outside the body during the exercise, whereas internal cueing draws focus to or inside the body.

External Cueing

EF refers to attention directed toward the external environment or reference, such as a box, bench, other fitness equipment, the floor, or even a body part (such as directing a dumbbell to touch the chest in a chest press), rather than internal body mechanics. EF primarily relies upon visual input (Sakurada, 2022).

Here are four examples of externally focused cues that a personal trainer could use when coaching an exercise.

• Squat: “Imagine you’re pushing the ground away with your feet as you stand up.”
• Deadlift: “Drag the bar up your legs like you’re zipping up a jacket.”
• Bench Press: “Push the bar away like you’re trying to punch the ceiling.”
• Lunges: “Step forward as if you’re reaching for a target in front of you.”

Internal Cueing

IF directs the learner or person’s focus to inside the body, such as a muscle, limb, or area of a limb. It is called “internal” because the learner must consciously focus on their own muscle or limb positioning to perform the exercise. IF focuses on internal body information, such as tactile or somatosensory input (Sakaruda et al., 2022). As the name suggests, IF indeed draws the focus inwards rather than outwards, as EF does.

Here are four examples of internally focused cues that a personal trainer could use when coaching an exercise.

• Squat: “Keep your chest up and engage your core as you lower down.”
• Deadlift: “Squeeze your glutes as you stand up tall.”
• Bench Press: “Tuck your elbows slightly and engage your lats as you press.”
• Lunge: “Keep your front knee aligned over your foot and engage your quads as you push up.”

Are All Cues Using a Body Part Internal?

No, not all cues using a body part are internal focused. In some cases, cueing a body part can still be external if used as an external reference point, such as “bring the dumbbell to your outer chest” on the eccentric portion of the chest press. Here we aren’t drawing focus for the outer chest to move a certain way, but using it as a reference point.

A body-part-based cue can be more external if it references an outcome rather than bodily awareness. For instance, “Touch your chest to the bar” during a pull-up is more external than “Engage your lats.”

Here are four examples of externally focused cues that a personal trainer could use when coaching an exercise.

1. Squat: “Imagine you’re pushing the ground away with your feet as you stand up.”
2. Deadlift: “Drag the bar up your legs like you’re zipping up a jacket.”
3. Bench Press: “Push the bar away like you’re trying to punch the ceiling.”
4. Lunges: “Step forward as if you’re reaching for a target in front of you.”

External vs. Internal Cueing: The Research Landscape

Evidence Supporting External Focus

Chiviacowsky et al. found that participants focusing on external cues—such as keeping markers on a platform horizontal—performed better than those concentrating on their body movements, particularly in skill retention (2010). EF has been linked to more automatic and fluid movements, reduced muscular co-contraction, and enhanced motor efficiency.

Chen et al. conducted a systematic review of attentional focus in older adults and found that over 60% of studies reported superior effects of EF on motor performance (2021). The constrained-action hypothesis (Wulf et al., 2001) suggests that EF controls movements more automatically, whereas IF can disrupt performance by inducing conscious control.

A study by Pelleck et al. examined how different types of focus (cueing) affected how well novice golfers performed a putting motion (2017). They used three types of focus:

1. Proximal Internal Cueing (Internal-Movement Focus) – Thinking about body movements close to the action, like your hands and elbows.
2. Distal Internal Cueing (Internal-Stance Focus) – Thinking about body positions slightly farther from the movement, like your feet and weight distribution.
3. External Cueing – Focusing on something outside your body, like the target (the hole).

What Happened:

• When novices focused on their hands and elbows (proximal internal cueing), they moved more slowly. Their backswing took longer, and they adjusted their movements more before finishing the putt.
• Accuracy was affected when they focused on their stance (distal internal cueing). But the study wasn’t sure why accuracy wasn’t affected when concentrating on hands and elbows.
• Their performance wasn’t negatively affected when they focused on the target (external cueing). This supports research showing that external focus helps movements become more automatic and fluid.

Why It Matters:

• Novices who focus too much on their body movements tend to overthink and make slow, less efficient movements. They need more time to adjust because they haven’t developed automatic motor patterns yet.
• Focusing on the target (external cueing) helps performance by reducing unnecessary adjustments and promoting smoother, more natural movement.
• Skilled golfers were unaffected primarily by different types of focus, meaning they have ingrained motor skills and can perform well regardless of cueing type.

In short, novices tend to overanalyze when focusing on their body, while focusing on the target helps them move more naturally.

Situations Where External Focus May Not Be Superior

However, not all research supports the blanket superiority of EF. Sawai et al. found no significant performance differences between IF and EF in younger and older adults, suggesting that EF does not always enhance motor outcomes (2024). Additionally, their research highlighted individual differences, noting that some people perform better under IF depending on their sensory processing characteristics.

Sakurada et al. further supported this notion by demonstrating that the optimal attentional strategy varies by individual (2022). Some individuals are IF-dominant, meaning they achieve better results when focusing on body movements, while others perform better with EF due to their dominance of visual or sensory modality. This indicates that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be ideal.

Although extensive literature supports external focus (EF) over internal focus (IF) cues, many expert performers and coaches still prefer to utilize internal cues (Herrebrøden, 2023). While there are fewer studies of internal focus (IF) than external focus (EF), numerous tasks, exercises, and sports may benefit more from internal focus (Herrebrøden, 2023).

McKay et al. discovered conflicting evidence regarding the consensus that an external focus is universally more effective than an internal focus. They observed that the focus of attention can have different impacts that cannot be fully explained, with overall effects being minimal to none.

Body form and proprioceptive feedback are crucial for achieving success in many tasks. However, sports such as dance, gymnastics, ski jumping, diving, and figure skating are not well-researched regarding focus of attention (Herrebrøden, 2023).

External Focus in Older Adults and Experts

A systematic review by Chen found that over 60% of included studies reported superior motor performance under EF conditions in older adults (2021). However, EF may be less effective for expert performers. Wulf observed that highly skilled athletes naturally mobilize automatic control systems, rendering explicit EF instructions redundant. Similarly, a study on juggling novices found that EF might provide unnecessary information for specific motor tasks, particularly in open-skill scenarios (Bull et al., 2023).

Findings from Bull’s research on skilled cricket batters further challenge the EF superiority narrative. The study revealed that while a distal EF improved technique and performance, providing skilled batters with no instructions yielded similar benefits. Additionally, internally focusing on movement mechanics had varying effects depending on the strategic intention of the shot.

McKay’s meta-analysis of 73 studies suggests that EF may have little to no effect on motor learning on average. While EF often leads to better performance, results vary due to unknown factors and potential publication bias. This finding underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to attentional focus strategies.

Adopting a Flexible Approach to Cueing

While EF has demonstrated advantages across various populations, attentional focus is not a one-size-fits-all strategy. Aiken’s research suggests that an internal focus during preparation, followed by an external focus during execution, may facilitate learning (2023). This hybrid approach leverages the benefits of both cueing strategies without disrupting motor automaticity.

Additionally, Herrebroden emphasizes the importance of task-relevant information. Rather than rigidly adhering to EF or IF, personal trainers should prioritize cues that enhance movement efficiency based on the task and individual needs.

Task-relevant information refers to data or stimuli that are important for completing a specific task, as opposed to distractions or irrelevant details (Biehl et al., 2013). For example, cueing “knees out” or “engage your core” may be more distracting and irrelevant for the client to process than cueing a specific task related to the exercise. 

This type of information is crucial for effective decision-making and performance in various cognitive tasks.

Practical Applications for Personal Trainers

Personal trainers should individualize their cueing strategies. Given the mixed findings on attentional focus, they should tailor their cueing strategies to individual clients. Through observation and experimentation, they should identify whether a client responds better to IF or EF. Clients may respond differently to exercise. 

New personal trainers often overcue, so they should provide clients with only one or two cues per set, allowing them to process the information. Few people can catch more than that while trying a new exercise. Sometimes, giving no cues in the first set is acceptable, as the client is still learning from the movement experience and may often see improvements on their own in the second set.

Skill level, sensory processing preferences, and task complexity should guide coaching approaches. EF is often advantageous for simple, closed-skill tasks. However, open-skill or strategic tasks may require a more nuanced approach.

1. For Novices: When teaching beginners, emphasize external cues to promote automaticity and reduce conscious interference. EF cues encourage smoother, more automatic movement patterns. For example, instruct a client to “push the floor away” during a squat rather than focusing on knee positioning. Novices who focus too much on their body movements tend to overthink and make slow, less efficient movements. They need more time to adjust because they haven’t developed automatic motor patterns yet.
2. For Skilled Clients: Allow flexibility in focus. Skilled athletes may benefit from switching between IF and EF depending on task demands. They also have automatic motor skills and can perform well regardless of cueing type.
3. For Older Adults: Since EF generally enhances motor performance in older populations, trainers should prioritize outcome-based cues such as “step toward the target” instead of emphasizing foot placement.

Conclusion

Recent research has challenged the long-standing belief that external focus is universally superior. While EF often enhances motor performance, individual differences, skill level, and task complexity play significant roles in determining the optimal cueing strategy. Personal trainers should adopt a flexible, evidence-based approach to attentional focus, tailoring cues to maximize each client’s motor learning potential.

References

1. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G, Wally R. An external focus of attention enhances balance learning in older adults. Gait Posture. 2010 Oct;32(4):572-5. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.08.004. Epub 2010 Sep 17. PMID: 20850325.
2. Sawai S, Murata S, Sakano Y, Fujikawa S, Yamamoto R, Shizuka Y, Nakano H. Dominance of attentional focus: a comparative study on its impact on standing postural control in healthy younger and older adults. Front Hum Neurosci. 2024 Jun 26;18:1384305. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1384305. PMID: 38988825; PMCID: PMC11233467.
3. Sakurada T, Yoshida M, Nagai K. Individual Optimal Attentional Strategy in Motor Learning Tasks Characterized by Steady-State Somatosensory and Visual Evoked Potentials. Front Hum Neurosci. 2022 Jan 4;15:784292. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.784292. PMID: 35058765; PMCID: PMC8763707.
4. Chen TT, Mak TCT, Ng SSM, Wong TWL. Attentional Focus Strategies to Improve Motor Performance in Older Adults: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 24;20(5):4047. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054047. PMID: 36901070; PMCID: PMC10002377.
5. Bull HG, Atack AC, North JS, Murphy CP. The effect of attentional focus instructions on performance and technique in a complex open skill. Eur J Sport Sci. 2023 Oct;23(10):2049-2058. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2022.2150895. Epub 2022 Dec 22. PMID: 36426512.
6. Pelleck V, Passmore SR. Location versus task relevance: The impact of differing internal focus of attention instructions on motor performance. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2017 May;176:23-31. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.03.007. Epub 2017 Mar 25. PMID: 28349876.
7. Aiken CA, Becker KA. Utilising an internal focus of attention during preparation and an external focus during execution may facilitate motor learning. Eur J Sport Sci. 2023 Feb;23(2):259-266. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2022.2042604. Epub 2022 Mar 3. PMID: 35164654.
8. Herrebrøden H. Motor Performers Need Task-relevant Information: Proposing an Alternative Mechanism for the Attentional Focus Effect. J Mot Behav. 2023;55(1):125-134. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2022.2122920. Epub 2022 Sep 14. PMID: 36104021.
9. Biehl, S.C., Ehlis, AC., Müller, L.D. et al. The impact of task relevance and degree of distraction on stimulus processing. BMC Neurosci 14, 107 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-14-107