Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of analogy instruction (ANA) on motor performance and knowledge declared (KD) compared with explicit learning (EXP) and control conditions. Five databases were included. The study analyzed 16 randomized controlled trials. Subsequent analy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Carnero-Díaz, Ángel, Pecci, Javier, Calvo Lluch, África, Camacho-Lazarraga, Pablo
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2024
País:España
Institución:Universidad Pablo de Olavide (UPO)
Repositorio:RIO. Repositorio Institucional Olavide
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:rio.upo.es:10433/22103
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/10433/22103
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Attentional focus
Implicit learning
Explicit learning
Motor learning
Cueing
id ES_fa5225cace074e67c25c2a2c179a2df3
oai_identifier_str oai:rio.upo.es:10433/22103
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysisCarnero-Díaz, ÁngelPecci, JavierCalvo Lluch, ÁfricaCamacho-Lazarraga, PabloAttentional focusImplicit learningExplicit learningMotor learningCueingThis systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of analogy instruction (ANA) on motor performance and knowledge declared (KD) compared with explicit learning (EXP) and control conditions. Five databases were included. The study analyzed 16 randomized controlled trials. Subsequent analysis was performed for moderators variables as age, skill, retention, stress situations number of rules, specificity and number of trials. The ANA instruction demonstrated greater efficacy than the control (ES = 0.32, p = 0.03) or EXP condition (ES = 0.29, p = 0.02) in motor tasks performance in general terms. ANA instructions also showed superiority in motor performance when compared to control conditions in retention (ES = 5.72, p = 0.004), and a trend towards significance was found under stress (ES = 1.18, p = 0.05). ANA also showed superiority in motor performance when compared to EXP instruction (ES = 0.29, p = 0.02). ANA demonstrated greater effects than EXP in retention (ES = 7.25, p = 0.01), but not under stress (ES = 0.62, p = 0.18). Sub-analyses demonstrated that children (all p < 0.01) and novices (all p < 0.01) are more likely to benefit from ANA instruction when compared to control or EXP. A subgroup analysis based on quantity of information comparing ANA versus EXP condition shows that ANA is more effective for enhancing motor performance than EXP when the number of rules are similar. Sub-analyses comparing ANA versus CNT shows that as the number of repetitions increases and the task becomes less specific, ANA instruction significantly improves performance. A comparison between ANA and EXP indicates no significant differences in performance regarding the number of repetitions and task specificity. A secondary analysis examined KD of different instructions. KD was greater in EXP instructions (ES = 1.48, p <0.001) when compared to ANA. Findings suggest that analogy instruction may improve motor performance, especially in novice and child populations. However, caution is needed due to concerns when comparing with other instructional types and environments, as well as due to high heterogeneity in most of the comparisons and high risk of bias in included studies.Elsevier20242024-12-1620242024-11-0120242024-11-01journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501VoRhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85info:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/10433/22103reponame:RIO. Repositorio Institucional Olavideinstname:Universidad Pablo de Olavide (UPO)Inglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:rio.upo.es:10433/221032026-06-13T12:46:27Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis
spellingShingle Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis
Carnero-Díaz, Ángel
Attentional focus
Implicit learning
Explicit learning
Motor learning
Cueing
title_short Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort Use your imagination for better performance. Effects of analogy instruction in motor skills. A systematic review and meta-analysis
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Carnero-Díaz, Ángel
Pecci, Javier
Calvo Lluch, África
Camacho-Lazarraga, Pablo
author Carnero-Díaz, Ángel
author_facet Carnero-Díaz, Ángel
Pecci, Javier
Calvo Lluch, África
Camacho-Lazarraga, Pablo
author_role author
author2 Pecci, Javier
Calvo Lluch, África
Camacho-Lazarraga, Pablo
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Attentional focus
Implicit learning
Explicit learning
Motor learning
Cueing
topic Attentional focus
Implicit learning
Explicit learning
Motor learning
Cueing
description This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of analogy instruction (ANA) on motor performance and knowledge declared (KD) compared with explicit learning (EXP) and control conditions. Five databases were included. The study analyzed 16 randomized controlled trials. Subsequent analysis was performed for moderators variables as age, skill, retention, stress situations number of rules, specificity and number of trials. The ANA instruction demonstrated greater efficacy than the control (ES = 0.32, p = 0.03) or EXP condition (ES = 0.29, p = 0.02) in motor tasks performance in general terms. ANA instructions also showed superiority in motor performance when compared to control conditions in retention (ES = 5.72, p = 0.004), and a trend towards significance was found under stress (ES = 1.18, p = 0.05). ANA also showed superiority in motor performance when compared to EXP instruction (ES = 0.29, p = 0.02). ANA demonstrated greater effects than EXP in retention (ES = 7.25, p = 0.01), but not under stress (ES = 0.62, p = 0.18). Sub-analyses demonstrated that children (all p < 0.01) and novices (all p < 0.01) are more likely to benefit from ANA instruction when compared to control or EXP. A subgroup analysis based on quantity of information comparing ANA versus EXP condition shows that ANA is more effective for enhancing motor performance than EXP when the number of rules are similar. Sub-analyses comparing ANA versus CNT shows that as the number of repetitions increases and the task becomes less specific, ANA instruction significantly improves performance. A comparison between ANA and EXP indicates no significant differences in performance regarding the number of repetitions and task specificity. A secondary analysis examined KD of different instructions. KD was greater in EXP instructions (ES = 1.48, p <0.001) when compared to ANA. Findings suggest that analogy instruction may improve motor performance, especially in novice and child populations. However, caution is needed due to concerns when comparing with other instructional types and environments, as well as due to high heterogeneity in most of the comparisons and high risk of bias in included studies.
publishDate 2024
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2024
2024-12-16
2024
2024-11-01
2024
2024-11-01
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv journal article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
VoR
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10433/22103
url https://hdl.handle.net/10433/22103
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
eng
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:RIO. Repositorio Institucional Olavide
instname:Universidad Pablo de Olavide (UPO)
instname_str Universidad Pablo de Olavide (UPO)
reponame_str RIO. Repositorio Institucional Olavide
collection RIO. Repositorio Institucional Olavide
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869425199868280832
score 15.81155

Similares en LA Referencia