Applying lessons from motor learning science to your coaching

Thomas Stringwell explores the fields of motor learning science and skill acquisition and how our approach to coaching can significantly affect the learning of a new skill or exercise.

Motor learning science is the science of skill acquisition, with the aim of improving our knowledge and understanding of pedagogical strategies within skill development¹. This can be measured with a focus on skill retention and how well an individual can perform a previously learnt skill over the long term, or the rate at which a new skill is learnt, or even the physiological effects a motor learning strategy has on the neuromuscular systems.

Such insight provides coaches (or any professional involved in teaching new skills) with the ability to apply an evidence-based approach within their coaching practice and, therefore, enhance skill development within their athletes and clientele. Before exploring the science of motor learning and skill acquisition, we first need to understand the different stages of motor learning and how we can impact this learning process as practitioners.

Motor learning science model

Previous motor learning models describe how the learning of a new movement goes through three distinct stages and, while some models may vary, the three-stage model detailed provides a framework that nicely illustrates the motor learning process. The first stage is known as the ‘cognitive stage’ of motor learning, where the co-ordination of a movement is yet to be fully developed, with a focus on body and limb positioning and a conscious feeling of whether a movement is being performed ‘right’. Within the cognitive stage of motor learning, coaches will utilise multiple coaching strategies to allow an individual to gain an understanding of how a movement skill should be performed and facilitate the learning process.

The second stage of motor learning is referred to as the ‘associative’ stage, where an individual now understands how a movement skill should be performed and can associate with what a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ repetition ‘feels like’. Such an understanding is key, as it encourages an independence of learning while further facilitating the learning process.

“When we learn a new skill, anatomical changes occur at a supraspinal level”

The third and final phase of the motor learning process is referred to as the ‘autonomous’ stage of motor learning, where a movement skill is being performed subconsciously without cognitive thought of how to execute the movement^2,3. Once a movement can be performed autonomously, it can be executed with greater fluidity and speed in reaction to the chaotic nature of sport. However, if an incorrect movement pattern has been embedded to the point of being autonomous, reteaching the correct movement can be challenging, with individuals often reverting back to the previous incorrect movement pattern when the environmental or situational demands are increased (e.g., during competition)².

Likewise, when relearning a movement with a modified movement strategy, an increase in focus on the new technique being taught is required, resulting in a regression back to the previous cognitive stage of motor learning. Such variability within the motor learning process is accompanied by adaptations within the neurological system, including synaptic remodelling and neuroplasticity within the motor cortex⁴. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation has allowed these neurological adaptations to be quantified, providing a greater understanding of how the brain adapts when we learn a new skill.

Synaptic remodelling and neuroplasticity  

When we learn a new skill, anatomical changes occur at a supraspinal level, with structural changes occurring within the motor cortex that allow a motor skill to become embedded within our movement vocabulary⁴. Such architectural changes occur due to a process known as ‘synaptogenesis’, with an increase in protein synthesis occurring within the neurons of the motor cortex⁵. The upregulation of synaptogenesis results in an enlargement of the relative dendrite fields, increasing synapse conductivity and, therefore, reinforcing the motor maps associated with the newly learned skill⁶.

These neural connections are further strengthened through the process of ‘synaptic pruning’, with unneeded synapses being removed⁶. This process of structural reconstruction or ‘neural plasticity’ within the brain is essential for learning, including the learning of a new exercise or the modification of a previously learnt skill that needs to be retaught⁷.

Such neural plasticity not only drives skill acquisition, but learning and cognitive function within a child’s development, with the greater number of neurons and synaptic remodelling evidenced within children increasing the capacity for a child to learn language, new skills and overall cognitive function⁸. Hence, practitioners should appreciate the neural remodelling process occurring when introducing a new exercise to an athlete or client, and how our teaching approach can have a significant effect on the neural connections developed throughout the learning process.

Attention of focus

Research within motor learning science investigating instructional cues demonstrates that the process of skill acquisition can be significantly affected by the type of coaching cue provided, potentially enhancing or hindering the motor learning process⁹. Previous research investigating externally vs internally focused attention demonstrates that the use of externally focused coaching cues can enhance accuracy and skill retention^10,11.

Examples of externally focused attention are coaching cues which reinforce an individual’s focus on an external object (e.g., the object being lifted or struck, a visual target, etc.) vs internally focused coaching cues which focus on internal body positioning (e.g., level of elbow flexion, foot position, etc.)^9,10

Research investigating the use of externally focused coaching cues within golf swing performance (golf club pendulum-like motion) demonstrates significant improvements in golf swing accuracy and skill retention when compared to internally focused attention (swinging motion of the arms only). The authors attributed the superior results to the fact that an externally focused attention promotes a more autonomous movement when compared to focusing on individual body parts¹⁰.

Such autonomous movement has previously been quantified when implementing an external focus of attention coaching strategy, demonstrating reduced electromyography (EMG) activation and movement economy in basketball free-throw performance. Participants were instructed to perform basketball free throws while focusing on either their wrist motion (internal focus) or the basket (external focus) while flexor carpi radialis, biceps brachii, triceps brachii, and deltoid EMG activity of the shooting arm were all recorded. The externally focused approach demonstrated a reduced EMG activity in the biceps and triceps muscles, along with an increase in free-throw accuracy¹¹.

“Detailed feedback provided after a good rep increases skill retention”

These findings suggest that an externally focused approach enhances movement economy while reducing unwanted ‘noise’ within the motor system, increasing movement fluidity and accuracy. As an example from a physical performance coach perspective, when coaching the snatch exercise, coaches should have athletes focus on the bar path itself rather than contracting the muscles of the upper and lower back to keep the bar close, allowing the fluidity of the movement to be maintained¹².

Likewise, when coaching the squat exercise with a focus on power development, coaches could have athletes focus on ‘ascending as fast as possible’ on the concentric phase of the movement, rather than performing the movement with a self-selected concentric speed, with the former resulting increased ascent velocity¹³. Therefore, it is evident that coaches should aim to implement more externally focused coaching cues where possible within their coaching practice, rather than being heavily reliant on internally focused cues.

Coaching feedback

When providing feedback within coaching practice, coaches often give praise when a movement is executed correctly and provide more detailed constructive feedback when a movement is performed incorrectly. However, research investigating feedback timing challenges this standard coaching convention, suggesting that detailed feedback provided after a good rep increases skill retention, enhances learning and provides a motivational function¹⁴. This is particularly apparent within the associated stage of motor learning, where an individual understands what a ‘good rep’ feels like and is well aware of when a movement has been performed incorrectly^2,3.

Interestingly, research suggests that in such cases it may be more effective to allow an athlete or client to dictate as to when they receive feedback, with a self-controlled feedback strategy being shown to enhance learning¹⁴. An example of this strategy within coaching practice would be to let an athlete or client request feedback after a set had been completed, with an advantageous response being “How well do you feel you performed that last set?”, encouraging the individual to self-evaluate their performance, reinforced by coaching input. Such an approach further enhances the associative phase of motor learning, while reinforcing athlete and client independence.

Other research suggests that the perceived skill learning ability that is communicated to an individual can have a significant impact on skill acquisition, with participants who are told that a skill is acquirable demonstrating increased motor learning when compared to those who are told that a skill requires an inherent ability¹⁵. Therefore, coaches should avoid using phrases such as “your limb lengths mean it is difficult for you to perform a deadlift” as such language suggests an inherent lack of ability that can’t be developed. Whereas language such as “we can modify your start position to accommodate for your limb lengths” suggests that, despite an individual’s anthropometrics, such individuals can still progress their deadlift performance and acquire that specific skill.

Likewise, research findings indicate that an individual’s perceived performance of learning can significantly affect skill acquisition, with individuals within a predetermined ‘better’ group demonstrating an enhanced level of motor learning when compared to those within a ‘worse’ group, despite all participants possessing the same initial skill level¹⁶. This suggests a self-fulfilling prophecy effect is evident within motor learning and, therefore, such pre-categorisation should be avoided within coaching practice.

Demonstrations in coaching practice

Motor learning science provides fascinating insights into the use of observational practice or demonstrations within skill acquisition. Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the premotor and motor cortex during the observation of a skill demonstrates that the same internal activation is activated as when performing the actual skill itself¹⁷. Such replication provides the opportunity to extract information when observing a demonstration that wouldn’t be possible when performing the same skill in real time¹⁸. Therefore, the use of demonstrations within coaching practice provides a unique learning opportunity for athletes and clients when learning a new skill. However, research suggests that the effectiveness of this teaching strategy can be significantly enhanced or diminished depending on how demonstrations are implemented.

It is common practice within coaching for coaches to firstly provide an expert demonstration of how a movement should be done. However, research comparing expert and novice models and combined expert-novice models suggests a combined approach increases skill retention, allowing observers to create frameworks of correct and incorrect movement strategies¹⁹. Therefore, coaches should consider implementing a mixed model approach where possible, especially within group coaching scenarios, where participants can act as a peer model for the rest of the group. Indeed, previous research shows that peer coaching increases learning and motivation while reducing self-consciousness²⁰.

These findings suggest that paired or small group practice should be encouraged, allowing athletes or clients to learn from each other rather than purely observing an expert demonstration. Similarly, research suggests that the expectation of having to teach a motor skill further enhances motor learning²¹. It is therefore evident that coaches should consider using a mixed model approach within coaching practice and encourage peer coaching where possible.

Key takeaways

The research findings presented demonstrate that many lessons can be learned from the science of motor learning within applied coaching practice, offering practitioners an evidence-based approach to coaching. Coaches need to consider the focus of attention when instructing how to perform a skill, favouring an externally focused approach where possible to encourage more autonomous movement and movement efficiency. Careful consideration should be given to the type and timing of feedback provided, with more feedback being provided after good practice and self-controlled feedback being encouraged.

Coaches should adopt language that reinforces that a skill is acquirable and avoid terminology that suggests a lack of inherent ability. Likewise, coaches should avoid using any form of labelling that could result in a negative self-fulfilling prophecy. When implementing demonstrations within practice, the use of combined expert and novice models should be considered. Furthermore, coaches should plan for peer coaching and paired practice where possible, allowing athletes and clients to learn from each other.

Finally, coaches should aim to continue to learn more from the fascinating field of motor learning, ensuring they are applying an evidenced-based approach to coaching and enhancing skill acquisition to the best of their ability.

Explore more of Thomas Stringwell’s expertise in performance coaching in this FitPro blog on the need for strength and power training within endurance running.

References

1. Williams M, Hodges N, Scott M (2004), Skill Acquisition in Sport, London; New York, NY: Routledge.
2. Fitts PM, Posner MI (1967), Human Performance, Brooks. Cole, Belmont, CA, 5: 7-16.
3. Fernandes LA, Nogueira NG, Figueiredo LS, Ferreira BP, Couto CR, Torres NL, Ribeiro LC, Lage GM (2022), Stages of motor learning and the teaching-learning process in swimming, Research, Society and Development, 11(3): e26311326201-.
4. Keller A (1993), Intrinsic synaptic organization of the motor cortex, Cerebral Cortex, 3(5): 430-41.
5. Luft AR, Buitrago MM, Kaelin-Lang A, Dichgans J, Schulz JB (2004), Protein synthesis inhibition blocks consolidation of an acrobatic motor skill, Learning & Memory, 11(4): 379-82.
6. Kleim JA, Hogg TM, VandenBerg PM, Cooper NR, Bruneau R, Remple M (2004), Cortical synaptogenesis and motor map reorganization occur during late, but not early, phase of motor skill learning, Journal of Neuroscience, 24(3): 628-33.
7. Hosp JA, Luft AR (2011), Cortical plasticity during motor learning and recovery after ischemic stroke, Neural Plasticity, (1): 871296.
8. Johnston MV (2009), Plasticity in the developing brain: Implications for rehabilitation, Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15(2): 94-101.
9. Wulf G, Shea C, Lewthwaite R (2010), Motor skill learning and performance: A review of influential factors, Medical Education, 44(1): 75-84.
10. Wulf G, Su J (2007), An external focus of attention enhances golf shot accuracy in beginners and experts, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(4): 384-9.
11. Zachry T, Wulf G, Mercer J, Bezodis N (2005), Increased movement accuracy and reduced EMG activity as the result of adopting an external focus of attention, Brain Research Bulletin, 67(4): 304-9.
12. Neumann DL (2019), A systematic review of attentional focus strategies in weightlifting, Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 1: 7.
13. Parrish KA, The Effects of Lifting with Intent on Hip and Knee Moments During Back Squats.
14. Chiviacowsky S, Wulf G (2002), Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it?, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(4): 408-15.
15. Wulf G, Lewthwaite R (2009), Conceptions of ability affect motor learning, Journal of Motor Behavior, 41(5): 461-7.
16. Lewthwaite R, Wulf G (2010), Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4): 738-49.
17. Buccino G, Binkofski F, Fink GR, Fadiga L, Fogassi L, Gallese V, Seitz RJ, Zilles K, Rizzolatti G, Freund HJ (2001), Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in a somatotopic manner: An fMRI study, European Journal of Neuroscience, 13(2): 400-4.
18. Shea CH, Wright DL, Wulf G, Whitacre C (2000), Physical and observational practice afford unique learning opportunities, Journal of Motor Behavior, 32(1): 27-36.
19. Rohbanfard H, Proteau L (2011), Learning through observation: A combination of expert and novice models favors learning, Experimental Brain Research, 215: 183-97.
20. Shebilskem WL, Regian JW, Arthur Jr W, Jordan JA (1992), A dyadic protocol for training complex skills, Human Factors, 34(3): 369-74.
21. Daou M, Lohse KR, Miller MW (2016), Expecting to teach enhances motor learning and information processing during practice, Human Movement Science, 49: 336-45.