|
The human mind can
be viewed as an extremely complex processor of information (Ramsey NF, Jansma JM, Jager G, Raalten
TV, Kahn RS, 2003). Within this framework, a minimum of three stages are
inferred from the time a stimulus is presented to the actual response
execution. These include (1) identification of the stimulus, (2) response
selection, and (3) response initiation / programming (Schmidt R, Lee T,
1999). However, the athlete can only process a limited amount of
information. The term, which addresses this, is attention. Schmidt and
Lee (1999), define attention as “a concept that describes limitations in
the processing of information.” While Weinberg and Gould (2003) classify
it as “(a) focusing on relevant cues in the environment, (b) maintaining
that attentional focus over time, (c) having awareness of the situation,
and (d) shifting attentional focus when necessary.” When the two are
synthesized, we see that attention is somehow limited, and therefore must
be directed to that which is relevant.
It is well established that “divided attention,” or a focus on multiple
tasks or thoughts, can elicit a marked decline in performance (Pashler
1995, Klingberg T, Roland PE 1997, Strayer DL, Drews FA, Johnston WA 2003,
Daniels GL, Newell KM 2003, ). As an illustration, in one study,
participants walked on a treadmill and were asked to avoid falling
obstacles. The experimental group performed a cognitive (requiring
thought) activity, while the control only had to avoid the obstacle (Weerdesteyn
V, Schillings AM, van Galen GP, Duysens J. 2003). Both velocity of
walking and avoidance of failure were lower in the former, which indicates
that divided attention can lower performance. Still other experiments
have provided evidence that the concept of attention itself is a vital
component of “motor memory (Katja Stefan, Matthias Wycislo, and Joseph
Classen 2003).”
But what are these limiting mechanisms?
To understand such a concept, a
methodology known as the “psychological refractory period paradigm
(McCann, R. S., Remington, R. W., & Van Selst, M, 2000)” has been
devised. In this paradigm subjects are exposed to two stimuli. In
response to a single stimulus, we would expect the following (shortened
for simplicity’s sake):
Stimulus 1 à
Response 1
However, the above
procedure implements a second stimulus before the response has been
initiated:
Stimulus 1
à
Stimulus 2 à
Response 1 and Response 2 follow
However, as was
described in the treadmill experiment, we find that there is a decrement,
or slowing in the response, in both R1 and R2. This, again, is divided
attention and has a very real applicability to one’s training. There is a
characteristic interference which occurs, and ultimately causes such a
decrement. What this interference is has been under hot debate for
decades.
Bottle Neck Theory
Posner (1978), and Wellford (1981) are well known for their proposed
bottleneck, or single channel, approach. The single channel theory varies
in interpretation (Schmidt R, Lee T 1999). In its crudest sense, a single
channel is available, in which only a single piece of information can be
processed at once. This, however, is easily refuted, as we would be
inhibited from performing any two activities simultaneously. There is a
variation of this theory which will be discussed further into the article,
which may have much more insight into attentional theories. That is, the
bottleneck may actually exist, but in a specific stage in information
processing.
The single channel theory can also be thought of in a more expanded
viewpoint as a “fixed” capacity. Think of the capacity as a fuel. Then
envision tasks as having a capacity “cost.” This would explain why
certain tasks can be performed simultaneously, and cause a decrement in
performance. The theory predicts that this source of capacity is limited
to the cost inherent in each task. It is comparable to RAM. One method
of evaluation, using a second task to test the first, is known as the
probe technique (Posner & Boies, 1971). By introducing a second task, you
can inherently recognize if it has a high capacity demand by analyzing the
amount of decrease in performance in the first task. If the task has a
high capacity need, then the subject will not be able to perform task 1 as
well. If the task has a low capacity, the opposite will occur.
The problem with this theory is that there appears to be a trend for
certain high capacity tasks to be able to work with other high capacity
tasks. Schmidt R and Lee T (1999) point out one experiment in which
participants:
A. Had to respond to a stimulus manually
B. Had to respond to a stimulus vocally
In both tasks, which require attention (in that they require precise
decision making), subjects had to execute a tracking task (tracking is
where you follow something, i.e. while in a car, you follow or track the
road). Results are as follows:
Task A: Decrement in performance
Task B: No decrement in performance
The problem here is
that the capacity model would have predicted both to receive a decrease in
performance. This was not the case.
Why then can some activities be performed together, and others not? It
turns out that the single channel hypothesis may indeed be able to shed
light on the subject. However, you must first take into account, the
various stages that occur prior to the initiation of a response.
Theoretic Frame
Works for Human Information Processing
The earliest theorists in this
field were known as association or behavioral theorists. They were
concerned with a concept known as S-R. The S stands for stimulus,
and would include such things as sound waves traveling to your ears. The
R represents the human’s response to S. Finally the “–“ represents the
bond between the two. That is, what exactly is it that strengthens or
weakens that bond. The key aspect of behavioral theorists is that they
had to “observe” the behavior of the individual. While that may seem
obvious, it actually is only a reflection of what cannot be viewed. The
reason why so many theories exist in motor acquisition is that the
processes are actually within the subject, and cannot be viewed, even with
our most advanced technology. Thus, inference must be made. A
theoretical framework, whose predictions fit that which is observed, must
be in place. Associationists were not interested in these internal
processes, but rather the external.
Pavlov conducted the first study in this theoretical framework. The
experiment involved a sounding device (a bell), and had canines as the
subjects. Pavlov would ring a bell every time the dogs ate. After
several trials, the subjects would drool every time they heard the bell.
Eventually, he removed the food, and only rang the bell. However, the
dogs still drooled. In this case, the bell was the stimulus, and drooling
was the response. Such a concept is known as “classical conditioning.”
Thorndike picked up where Pavlov left off. This giant in the field
devised what are known today as Thorndike’s Three Laws.
1. The Law of Readiness – The learner must be in a state of
readiness to learn. This is to say, that to place information into
permanent memory, the human must be capable of receiving this
information. There are certain times in your life where the acquisition
of certain informational processes can take place; once passed, it is too
late.
2. The Law of Effect – I find this to be his most fascinating
law. It exclaims that if a response is satisfying to a subject, they will
most likely repeat it.
There is a reason this is called a law: because it is powerful!
Unfortunately, many detrimental habits that humans partake in are also
satisfying. This has everything to do with the concept of attention.
Certain distracters may cause satisfying results. You will therefore be
likely to engage in these distractive activities. Athletes should
understand how to deal with such occurrences by properly analyzing what is
causing the distractions and what exactly the consequences are. For
example, an antecedent may be an enjoyable conversation that you had
earlier the day. While training, you allow that thought to spring up in
your mind.
The consequence is a
reoccurrence of the satisfaction, which took place earlier in the day.
You may therefore become accustomed to allowing the mind to wander!
However, there is also a negative and obvious consequence. That
consequence is decreased performance in the gym. There are many people
who train whilst emerged in a complete fog. That fog is composed of
utterly irrelevant information. As an athlete, you can counter such an
occurrence by learning to redirect your attention. Before you train, you
might incorporate imagery. In doing so, you would pre-program the events
to follow perfectly. So perfectly, in fact, that no thought could enter
which was not relevant. You could also incorporate attention drills,
which enhance your ability to narrow in. Indeed, psychological skills are
no different then physical skills, in that they must be practiced
vigorously (Weinberg and Gould 2003)!
The procedure you initiate could be summed up as follows:
Imagery (antecedent) à
Optimal Focus (behavior) à
Increased Pump, Greater workouts, Greater gains (consequences) = Likely To
Repeat
Therefore, one must understand that when modifying a behavior, they must
also analyze the antecedents and consequences, and re strategize in order
to combat these areas. The point is that you want to structure an
environment which facilitates Thorndike’s second law.
I say this because his law also has a second aspect to it. If there is a
negative consequence, the subject will not likely repeat it. You want to
structure an environment which is laden with rewards. We will discuss
this subject in future issues, as there are literally endless ways in
which to propel you to new levels within this issue alone!
3. Law of Exercise – This law states that the more you train, or
exercise a skill, the more stable it becomes, and the greater performance
will be. Practice is the number one variable of permanently increasing
one’s capacity. Directing your attention is also a skill. With practice,
you can actually have the ability to narrow into any stimulus, while
eliminating all others. Gould and Weinberg provide a specific drill in a
review on the concept of concentration. The point of this drill is to
obtain the skill of actually shifting your attention. I will outline
their protocol:
Note: your eyes are closed until stage five.
Awareness of Auditory Stimuli Stage – You
will begin by taking special care to sense all the sounds around you. So
great will this care be that you will mentally name each one. Once this
has occurred, you will stop naming the sounds, direct your attention away
from your internal thoughts, and sense all of the sounds as a blend.
Gould and Weinberg suggest comparing it to “listening to music.”
Awareness of Somatic Stimuli Stage
– Most likely, as you read this, you do not
notice the sensations in your feet, and gluteal area. However, once I
told you to notice them, you became fully aware. The body continually
receives multiple stimuli from numerous areas. As you directed your
attention toward these areas, these sensations appeared to heighten. This
is what this stage is all about. It not only shows the power of
attentional direction control, but enhances your ability to expand your
awareness. You will repeat the same process as the auditory stage.
However, you will instead first become aware of all the physical stimuli
occurring, such as the feeling of your glutes in your chair, and your back
as well. Again, classify each feeling, and then attempt to sense all of
them at once, without naming them.
Emotional Awareness Stage – You will attempt to address each of your
emotions in this stage. Embrace each one, as well as all of your
thoughts. Attempt to sense them with the utmost awareness. Then, release
them and loosen up with slow and deep breathing.
Lens Stage – Gould
and Weinberg compare your concentration to a zoom lens. This exercise is
extremely powerful, and ends the process. After the emotional awareness
stage, open your eyes. Now, find an object in the room and take note of
it. You will now, while keeping the object in view, attempt to see all
other objects in the room. Try and experience each object visually. Now,
direct your attention to the object of interest. Try focusing on it,
while eliminating all other objects in the room. Once you are focused,
attempt to stay focused on the object for as long as possible. To take
this skill to a new level, attempt to widen or narrow your focus on the
object, as if your eyes were a lens. But, you must still maintain focus.
This four-stage process takes each of your senses into account, and allows
you to master them! During an imagery session, you can practice narrowing
in on a certain weight training tasks.
Hull was another
famous associationist. Working with Thorndike’s second law, he found that
positive reinforcement was more productive than negative reinforcement.
However, he also realized that human movement is goal-oriented, and that
we are always working to adapt to our environment. In essence, you are
working on the environment to produce a change that better adapts you to
your surroundings.
We can actually
synthesize Hull’s findings. You must understand, that it is pivotal that
you structure an environment that is both challenging and rewarding.
Setting goals and reaching them is extremely rewarding (Knowlden, 2003).
One key is to focus on process goals. These are goals that center on
actions, which will move you toward performance and outcome goals.
However, the control you have over them is superior when compared to the
latter two. For example, you have less control over the judging in a
bodybuilding contest than you do over your pre-workout routine.
One example of positive feedback is to make a checklist of items for your
current diet. By checking off the boxes, you will be reaching process
goals, which is satisfying. Soon, however, when you see the results of
your hard work, you will receive intrinsic reinforcement, or reinforcement
which comes from within.
The next framework concerns the Gestalt Theorists. These theorists
stepped back and watched the whole picture. They recognized that we are
not only working on the environment, but that the environment is also
working on us! Moreover, the human mind distains states of chaos, and is
always attempting to give meaning to the environment. Think of a time
that you were lost. During this trial, your heart rate rose, and your
palms began to sweat.
These theorists devised three laws: the law of Proximity, the law of
Similarity, and the law of Closure. The first states that when we see
things close together, we tend to group them together. The second states
that things which are similar to one another will be grouped together.
Finally, the third Gestalt law asserts that humans tend to reconcile a
space by closing a contour.
The final and most recent framework is called the Cognitive Theory. This
is one of the most accepted theories in the field. First, you must
understand that the brain is an active information processor. The
interval from the instant a stimulus is perceived to the instant a
response is initiated is called Reaction Time (RT). What goes on during
that interval is of much interest.
Step 1 à
You identify the stimulus à
Compare the stimulus to past experiences à
A response is selected à
You initiate the Response à
A Consequence, whether positive or negative occurs à
You now benefit from the consequence. If it was positive, you will most
likely continue activity (Hull’s work with Thorndike’s second law).
That was an
overview. The process must be looked into in far greater depth. We begin
with the concept of “Processing.” The human body has various senses.
There is the kinesthetic, olfactory (smell), auditory (sound), visual, and
tactile (touch). Such senses are perceived with special organs and
nerves. Upon perception of a stimulus in the envireonment, the
information must be processed, or translated. I liken this to various
languages. If you cannot speak a certain dialect, the information
contained within a phrase held behind the symbols of that dialect must
first be represented by symbols which you can comprehend (a-b-c) before
they can be made of use. Similarly, visual stimuli must be coded, such
that they can be stored and compared with past memory, and a decision can
ultimately be made.
Information
processing then begins with perception of a stimulus. The body then must
recognize or form a pattern out of this information. This is similar to
the Gestalt theory discussed earlier. Through rigorous processing, the
information is coded and a pattern formed. Finally, the information
contacts memory.
Schmidt and Lee state that, “When previously processed information
influences current information processing, then we assume that memory is
the reason. Indeed when viewed this way, it is obvious that everything we
do is influenced by memory. The current state of our skills and knowledge
reflects previous information processing (1999, p. 55).”
The first form of memory is short term sensory store. This is apparently
a limitless source of memory, but only lasts 250 ms to 1 second. As the
name implies, it acts as a storage site, but has a fast decay rate. The
next source of storage is short term memory. This lasts for a few minutes
(Latash, 1998, p. 155), or an estimate of 2-3. It is postulated that it
is limited to 3-7 chunks of information (Cowan, 2001). A chunk is
referred to as a grouped amount of information. For example, I may say to
you, “How are you?” There are 9 letters in that sentence; however, it is
grouped into three chunks. The human mind can actually improve the
ability to chunk information.
Ericcson
and Chase (1990) found that:
”After more than 230 hours of practice in the laboratory, a
subject was able to increase his memory span from 7 to 79 digits. His
performance on other memory tests with digits equaled that of memory
experts with lifelong training. With an appropriate mnemonic system, there
is seemingly no limit to memory performance with practice.”
However, Schmidt and
Lee (1999, p. 57) assert that this was probably chunked information within
the proper range discussed. They also state that short-term memory is
able to be perceived consciously. As the result of experience or practice
of that which is stored in short-term memory, information can eventually
be entered into long-term, or permanent, memory.
The second phase, or response selection phase, occurs as a result of
comparison with past experiences. Thus, each of our decisions is very
much based on our past experiences. If a student goes into a science
class and has never heard of the word myofibril, then he is facing a first
time experience. If, however, he has spent time on abc, then he will have
a past experience to compare to, and will ultimately be ahead of his
fellow classmates. This is one of the reasons we provide so much free
information on the site. Our goal is to educate, as much as improve
others physically. It is of vital importance that those who utilize this
site also increase their associative spread.
Once the response has been selected, a program must be initiated. For
example, in your memory, a motor program exists which contains the
instructions to bench press a weight. The sequences involved in this
procedure have been refined over numerous trials. Every time you make a
mistake, it can also be stored as a past experience. The body can then
make the necessary corrections. When you have a positive outcome, the
body can again refine the motor program. There is now debate as to
whether or not a motor program can be initiated subconsciously or not.
The staff at abc and myself have researched this area extensively and will
report on it in the future. There are some interesting findings, however.
I have only touched
on the concept of information. What it is and how it is quantified will
be addressed in the future. Mr. Knowlden has done extensive research in
this area.
Applications to Attention
While typing with
both hands, it is impossible for me to simultaneously grab the protein
shake on my desk. This is a form of structural interference, and can be
applied in principle to attentional limitations. In the earlier stages of
information processing, much information can be processed (Pashler,
1995). This is known as parallel processing. However, in the latter
stages, such as response programming, there appears to be evidence of
purposeful blockage of processing mechanisms when a second stimulus is
presented. Pashler and colleagues (1984, 2001) postulate that what is
occurring instead of capacity drain is an inhibitory “bottle neck.” This
is to say that certain tasks require similar neural structures for their
execution. Therefore, when an action is selected, others which might
otherwise interfere with that action are inhibited. In one experiment,
Klingberg and Roland (1997) had subjects perform an auditory go/no go task
with an auditory memory task. When performed together, there was a
notable increase in reaction time as compared to separate initiations.
Using positron emission tomography, it was found that these tasks showed
overlapping activity in the cortex.
This theory is
rapidly gaining acceptance. The process, when viewed, looks like this:
Stimulus 1 presented
à
Response 1 Initiated
If stimulus 2 is presented within 50-500 milliseconds before response 1
takes place, then interference occurs in the processing of response 2.
This is known as the Psychological refractory period ( ). As the space
between s1 and s2 increases, so too does the refractory period decrease.
This simply means
that within the spoken timeframe, a delay occurs in the processing of
stimulus 2. However, this delay is lessened with increased
separation of time, in reference to the presentation of introduced
stimuli. Another interesting effect is when two stimuli are
presented within 10 milliseconds of each other. When this occurs,
they are grouped as a complex set of movements. In this case,
reaction time is slower overall. Several factors of the refractory
period are summarized as follows:
1. Practice of the
presentation of 2 stimuli diminishes the interference effects. However,
they do not completely diminish. From this a structural form of
interference is postulated.
2. S-R compatibility refers to the cohesiveness of the stimulus and
response. In other words, does the response you desire match the stimulus
presented. The more compatible they are, the quicker the information is
processed.
Interestingly enough, this goes hand and hand with weight training. The
more focused your mind is on weight training, the smoother informational
processing needed to complete a repetition will be.
3. It appears that
certain processes can operate in parallel in latter stages. These
processes are postulated to occur because they do not use the same aspects
of the nervous system. Thus, parallel processing is relative.
From the above, it
is now much clearer how athletes fake each other out. First, it is
understood that reaction time is consuming. If an athlete presents one
stimulus to an opponent that the opponent directs his attention to,
followed by a second stimulus, then a refractory period, which lasts a
minimum of 200 ms and as long as 500 ms ( ) will occur. An example would
be a shoulder fake to the right, followed by an explosive drive to the
left. However, if you are an athlete in such a sport, you must separate
moves by at least 50 milliseconds so that the two moves are not
synthesized to one reaction time.
Key Points
Attention can indeed
be interfered with. The competitive athlete must be aware of such an
occurrence. A realization of the decrement in performance should be clear
in your mind. This is one reason why pre-workout routines work in such a
proficient manner. It is interesting to note that studies indicate that
when a pre-routine is denied, that performance is lowered. Gayton,
Cielinski, Keniston, and Hearns (1989) had basketball players shoot in
conditions with and without a pre-shot routine. It was found that a
“significantly larger number of baskets were made in the pre-shot routine
condition than without the routine.”
A motor program is a representation of a pre-programmed and coordinated
sequence of movements prior to the presentation of a stimulus. However,
refraction and delays in processing will occur when an attention-demanding
stimulus interferes with what should rightfully be R1 (the exercise at
hand).
This review was a
window into several serious subjects; subjects which will ultimately lead
to a zone-like focus that you would have never thought possible.
It is interesting to
note that The Lord himself directs his attention. As the Psalmist said:
Psalms 34:
15 The eyes of
the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry. 16 The
face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance
of them from the earth.
Yours in Sport
Jacob Wilson
President Abcbodybuilding/Co-Editor of the Journal of HYPERplasia Research
References and Sources Cited
McCann, R. S.,
Remington, R. W., & Van Selst, M. (2000) Lexical decision and naming:
evidence from the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 26,
1352-1370.
Pashler, H. Attention and Visual Perception:
Analyzing Divided Attention. (1995).
Weinberg R, Gould D, Foundations of Sport And
Exercise Psychology: Human Kinetics 2003
Ramsey NF, Jansma JM, Jager G, Raalten TV, Kahn RS
Neurophysiological factors in human information processing capacity.
Brain. 2003 Dec 22
Strayer DL, Drews FA, Johnston WA. Cell
phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. J
Exp Psychol Appl. 2003 Mar; 9(1): 23-32.
Schmitdt, R, Timothy L, Motor Control and Learning, 3rd
edition: Human Kinetics 1999
Weerdesteyn V, Schillings AM, van Galen GP, Duysens
J. Distraction affects the performance of obstacle avoidance during
walking J Mot Behav. 2003 Mar; 35(1): 53-63
Cowan N The
magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage
capacity. Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Feb;24(1):87-114; discussion
114-85
Ericcson KA, Chase WG, Faloon S. Acquisition of a memory skill. Science. 1980 Jun 6;208(4448):1181-2.
Pashler, H. Processing stages in overlapping tasks:
Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358-377. (1984).
Pashler, H. Attention and Visual Perception:
Analyzing Divided Attention. (1995).
Gayton WF, Cielinski KL, Francis-Keniston WJ, Hearns
JF. Effects of preshot routine on free-throw shooting. Percept Mot
Skills. 1989 Feb; 68(1): 317-8.
© ABC Bodybuilding Company. All rights reserved. Disclaimer
|
