The effect of attentional cues on mechanical efficiency and movement smoothness in running gait: An interdisciplinary investigation

ABSTRACT

The aim was to examine the effect of focus of attention cues on foot angle for retraining movement purposes. Twenty (females: 8) rearfoot-striking recreational runners (mass: 72.5 ± 11.8 kg; height: 1.73 ± 0.09 m; age: 32.9 ± 11.3 years) were randomly assigned to an internal focus (IF) (n = 10) or external focus (EF) (n = 10) verbal cue group. Participants performed 5 × 6 minute blocks of treadmill running (control run, 3 × cued running, retention run) at a self-selected running velocity (9.4 ± 1.1 km∙h⁻¹) during a single laboratory visit. Touchdown foot angle, mechanical efficiency, internal and external work were calculated and, centre of mass (COM) and foot movement smoothness was quantified. Linear-mixed effect models showed an interaction for foot angle (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.35) and mechanical efficiency (p < 0.001, η_p² = 0.40) when comparing the control to the cued running. Only the IF group reduced foot angle and mechanical efficiency during cued running, but not during the retention run. The IF group produced less external work during the 1^st cued run than the control run. COM and foot smoothness were unaffected by cueing. Only an IF produced desired technique changes but at the cost of reduced mechanical efficiency. Movement smoothness was unaffected by cue provision. Changes to foot angle can be achieved within 6 minutes of gait retraining.

KEYWORDS:

• Focus of attention
• gait retraining
• conscious control
• running gait
• external work

View correction statement:

Correction

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Michael Long and Laurie Needham for their technical expertise, and Leah Bitchell and Roseann Charles for their help in recruiting participants and collecting data.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Author contributions

IM, KA and RM conceived and designed the study. MMR, HJ and IM performed the data collection. MMR and HJ undertook the initial processing of the data. IM analysed the data and drafted the initial manuscript. All authors provided critical comments on the final draft of the manuscript.

Correction Statement

This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2024.2365060)

Additional information

Funding

IM received funding from the British Association of Sport and Exercise Science Early Career Award.