A different cue may change your performance. Discover how to specifically investigate the effect.
About attention, instructions and the targeted study of movement.
“Turn your pelvis.” “Move the seat to the point in front of you.” Two instructions for an exercise on a moving chair. The first emphasizes a body part, the second what you want to achieve with the movement. The instructions seem similar, but they direct your attention differently.
Such instructions are found everywhere. A rider receives advice about the position of their hands. A therapist guides a reaching movement. A dental professional looks for a working position in which a precise action can be performed. Each time the question is: what information helps this person with this task?
Research on attentional focus shows that the way an instruction is formulated can be relevant to its execution. However, the results do not indicate what works best for everyone and for every movement. It is precisely the differences between studies that make this topic interesting: good guidance requires attention to both the words and the response of the person who is moving. [1, 2]
An instruction directs your attention
In movement science, a distinction is often made between an internal and an external attentional focus. With an internal focus, you direct your attention to a movement of your body, such as straightening your elbow. With an external focus, your attention goes to the intended effect of the action, such as moving an object to a target. The distinction therefore concerns what the attention is directed to, not whether the instruction is given by yourself or by someone else. [1]
Suppose you slide a cup to a marked spot on the table. “Straighten your arm forward” emphasizes the body movement. “Slide the cup to the circle” emphasizes the result outside the body. This is an illustration of two formulations, not a comparison whose outcome is predetermined. You can use it to investigate what someone understands, how the action is performed, and whether the cup reaches the desired spot.
For a trainer or therapist, this offers an additional choice. You can name a body part when you want to explain a specific movement. You can also use a goal in the environment to make the instruction concrete. You then assess which formulation is useful based on the execution and the goal of the exercise. The words are part of the guidance that you can consciously choose.
What does science say about instructions?
Chua and colleagues synthesized research on internal and external attentional focus in 2021. For direct motor performance, they used 73 studies with 1,824 participants. On average, participants performed better with an external than with an internal focus. The researchers also found benefits in separate analyses of skill retention and application. This publication thus supported the use of instructions that direct attention to the effect of the movement. [1]
A critical reanalysis from 2024 placed an important caveat on this. McKay and colleagues accounted for publication bias using various statistical models: the possibility that favorable results are more likely to end up in the literature than less favorable ones. After those corrections, the estimated average benefits were small to negligible. The outcomes also differed clearly between studies. The general claim that an external focus always works better is therefore insufficiently supported. [2]
These two publications help to make a practical distinction. An externally focused instruction is a useful option to explore. It is not a guarantee of better performance. The useful follow-up question is therefore: what happens with this person when we direct the attention differently? In this way, the response to an instruction becomes a topic that you can investigate systematically. [1, 2]
Why does the formulation make a difference?
A network meta-analysis by Peng and colleagues from 2026 investigated 87 studies with healthy participants. The researchers re-examined how the instructions used were classified. In 78 studies, reclassification was necessary according to their pre-established definitions. After that reclassification, the ranking of the attentional strategies changed. Different patterns also emerged depending on the participants' level of expertise. The authors warned about sensitivity to small studies and possible reporting bias. [3]
That finding is relevant because a label like “external focus” says little without the corresponding instruction. Attention to an object nearby, a more distant goal, or the overall experience of movement are different instructions. The analysis from 2026 makes clear that the way researchers group those instructions also shapes the conclusion. [3]
In practice, you can translate that into something simple: remember not only that you gave an instruction, but also which one. “Move more calmly” and “let the seat slowly approach the point” are not interchangeable instructions. Discuss what the participant understands by your words. This way, you can adjust the next attempt in a targeted manner instead of always repeating the same instruction louder or more often.
The goal of the movement remains central
You assess an instruction by what someone is trying to do. In a targeting task, accuracy is a different outcome than speed. In a movement exercise, the reached direction may be important, while in a work action, reach and feasibility are primarily central. Therefore, first choose what you want to investigate and then determine which information fits that.
A network meta-analysis from 2024 investigated different forms of attention in sport-specific skills in twelve studies. There were indications of benefits from an external focus and of a focus on the overall experience of movement. However, for some forms, only one study was available. The researchers also noted inconsistency in the analysis of performance immediately after practice. That limits the certainty with which one approach can be designated as the best. [4]
Even a very concrete sports task does not give an obvious uniform answer. Feng and colleagues collected nineteen studies on darts in 2026, with 923 participants. The results were mixed: some studies found benefits of external focus, others found conditional effects or no convincing difference. The researchers concluded that the task and test conditions deserve attention in the interpretation. The studies are narratively summarized; no overall average effect has been calculated. [5]
For guidance, the lesson is primarily to describe the result. Do you want someone to reach a goal, explore a direction, or perform an action with more ease? If that is clear, you can see if an instruction helps with that. “Move differently” is an observation. “Better for this task” requires a concrete criterion.
Experiencing first gives you something to compare
Before you give an additional instruction, you can have someone perform the agreed movement. You thus establish what the execution looks like before you add the supplementary instruction. That provides a starting point for the comparison. Then you change the formulation and see what happens.
Take a simple turning task on a dynamic seat. First, ask someone to move calmly left and right within a comfortable range. Then, choose one targeted instruction, for example, to turn the seat toward a visible goal. Keep the seat setting and the other instruction as similar as possible. This way, it remains clear which change in the guidance you want to explore.
Afterward, also ask what the participant noticed. Was the instruction understandable? Where did the attention go? Did the execution feel different? Such questions place the experience alongside the observation. A noticeable difference can be a reason for further research, even when you do not yet see a clear change. Conversely, a visible change can occur without the participant experiencing it as pleasant or useful.
An initial performance is always an execution in a certain environment. The chair, the goal, and the presence of a guide belong to that situation. Therefore, describe what someone shows during the task. This keeps the comparison concrete and prevents one execution from immediately being explained as a fixed characteristic of the person.
Sit-i Pro makes differences in movement visible
Sit-i Pro adds a recording of the seat movement to the movement possibilities of the Dynamic Chair. The sensors and software make, among other things, direction, rotation, and angle change visible. This allows you to see during a session how the recorded movement progresses with different instructions. Sit-i Pro is integrated into Sit-i Athlete · Pro and Sit-i Care · Pro.
In the turning task, you can, for example, observe how someone moves and additionally see what angle change the seat records. Then you give a different instruction and compare the executions. The participant describes what they experienced. This way, the instruction, the visible movement, the recording, and the personal experience come together.
Suppose the seat turns further to the right after an instruction. Then a larger recorded movement to the right is the finding. Whether that change is useful depends on the question you started with. If the goal was precisely a small, accurate movement, turning further is not automatically a better result. If someone wanted to explore a direction, the same finding can be an interesting starting point.
The recording concerns the seat. It is not a direct measurement of the individual movements of the pelvis or the spine, nor of muscle activity. Therefore, connect the data to what you observe in the body. The general attentional reviews support the investigation of instructions; they do not show a product-specific learning or treatment effect of Sit-i Pro. [1–5]
A screen is also a choice in the guidance
You can use the measurement screen to look back at a movement together. You can also have the participant look at the recording during the execution. In that second case, looking at the screen belongs to the instruction. For a clear comparison, it is useful to make that choice consciously.
Think of someone who first performs a turn without seeing the screen and then tries to approach a displayed goal. You then compare an execution with and without that visual information. That can be a meaningful exploration, provided you describe the change accordingly. A difference may not be attributed exclusively to a verbal instruction when the screen was made visible at the same time.
Therefore, make clear what the screen should contribute at that moment. Do you want someone to recognise a direction, discuss an earlier execution, or offer a goal for a next attempt? These different applications each deserve a suitable instruction. This way, technology gets a concrete place in the guidance and the movement remains connected to an understandable goal.
Recognizable applications in work and sports
Outside a practice session, you can also direct an instruction to the goal of an action. In office work, that can be reaching an object; in dental care, keeping work space free for a precise procedure. The application in the treatment room requires its own assessment, as How do you combine precision and freedom of movement in oral care? about Oris shows.
Research on attentional focus does not prove that one formulation reduces the physical load during dental treatment. Therefore, choose words that make the work action understandable and see what the professional can actually do with it.
With an athlete, you can compare two formulations during the same exercise. If you want to know whether the experience becomes useful outside the Sit-i session, choose a sports action and assess it separately with the trainer. What can you take from Sit-i into your sport?, ‘What can you take from Sit-i into your sport?’, elaborates that follow-up step.
See. Feel. Refine. Improve.
Looking at, experiencing, and making targeted adjustments to a movement brings different types of information together. The Sit-i approach connects those perspectives: See. Feel. Refine. Improve. Every step helps to make the next question more concrete.
See what the movement shows. Start with the agreed task and look at the execution. With Pro, you can also include the recorded seat movement. Choose beforehand which characteristic is relevant, for example, the direction or the reached angle. This gives the comparison a clear topic.
Feel what the instruction changes. Make room for the personal experience. Ask how the instruction was understood and what the participant noticed. Use the answer to ask further, without prescribing a certain experience. What someone feels and what you record can complement each other.
Refine the next instruction. Choose a targeted adjustment based on that information. That can be a more concrete goal, a different formulation, or a return to the first instruction. By exploring one component at a time, you keep sight of what you have changed.
Improve what is of value for the task. Assess the next execution against the original question. Does the object reach the desired spot? Is the agreed direction reached? Does the participant experience more ease with the same task? This way, improving gets a practical meaning that goes beyond another line on the screen.
What does this mean for the Sit-i Academy?
Flow Analyst helps professionals precisely record which instruction was given, what changed in the execution, and what Sit-i Pro recorded of the seat. For certified healthcare professionals, Movement Expert offers further study after Flow Analyst into the question of which instruction and follow-up step fit a treatment.
What can we conclude?
An instruction directs attention to a component of the movement, a goal, or an experience. The reviews show that that choice can be relevant, while the best approach is not fixed for all tasks and participants. Recent analyses also emphasize that the precise classification of instructions and the quality of the underlying studies influence the conclusion. [1–5]
Therefore, for your next exercise, you can start with a concrete question. Have someone perform the task, consciously choose one instruction, and investigate what changes. Look at the execution, ask about the experience, and use appropriate measurement information where available. With Sit-i Pro and further study through the Academy, that method gets a concrete application: learning to see better what your instruction brings about and choosing more precisely what you do next.
Explore further
Academy · Flow Analyst — view the learning pathwayway
Scientific sources
The publications below support the numbered statements in this article. They are systematic reviews and meta-analyses; the certainty of the evidence varies per task, outcome, and quality of the underlying studies. They do not form product-specific evidence for Sit-i Pro.
[1] Chua, L.-K., Jiménez-Díaz, J., Lewthwaite, R., Kim, T., & Wulf, G. (2021). Superiority of external attentional focus for motor performance and learning: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 147(6), 618–645.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000335
[2] McKay, B., Corson, A. E., Seedu, J., De Faveri, C. S., Hasan, H., Arnold, K., Adams, F. C., & Carter, M. J. (2024). Reporting bias, not external focus: A robust Bayesian meta-analysis and systematic review of the external focus of attention literature. Psychological Bulletin, 150(11), 1347–1362.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000451
[3] Peng, F., Yang, Z., Su, Y., Shi, Y., Lin, J., Zeng, Y., Li, G., Jia, X., Li, W., & Xie, Y. (2026). Reevaluating attentional focus on motor performance according to expertise: A stratified network meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 86, 103215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2026.103215
[4] Favre-Bulle, E., Nyfeler, S., Schorderet, C., Risso, G., Bassolino, M., & Sattelmayer, K. M. (2024). The effectiveness of different attentional foci on the acquisition of sport-specific motor skills in healthy adults: a systematic review with network meta-analysis. PeerJ, 12, e17799.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17799
[5] Feng, N., Shangguan, Q., & Zhu, X. (2026). Effects of internal and external attentional focus on dart-throwing performance: a systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 17, 1923857.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1923857
Scientific justification: these studies describe the relationship between attentional focus, instructions, and motor performance. The practical examples show how you can use these insights to investigate movement. They do not provide product-specific evidence that Sit-i Pro improves the execution or the learning process.