↓ Skip to main content

Motor control strategies and the effects of fatigue on golf putting performance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Motor control strategies and the effects of fatigue on golf putting performance
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.01005
Pubmed ID
Authors

John F. Mathers, Madeleine A. Grealy

Abstract

This study investigated the strategies used by elite golfers to scale their putting actions to achieve putts of different distances. There were three aims; to determine if putting actions are scaled by manipulating swing amplitude as predicted by Craig etal. (2000), to establish the test-retest reliability of the Craig et al. model, and to evaluate whether elite golfers changed their putting scaling strategies when fatigued. Putting actions were recorded at baseline (time 1) and 6 months later (time 2) and after walking at 70% of maximum heart rate for 1 h (time 3). Participants performed a total of 80 putts which varied in distance (1 m, 2 m, 3 m, and 4 m) at time 1 and time 2, and 100 putts to the same distances when they were fatigued (time 3). Multiple regression was used to examine how the golfers systematically changed the movement control variables in the Craig etal. (2000) model to achieve golf putts of different distances. Although swing amplitude was a strong predictor of putterhead velocity at ball impact for all of the participants at baseline (time 1), each golfer systematically changed aspects of the timing of their action. A comparison of the regression models between time 1 and time 2 showed no significant changes in the scaling strategies used, indicating that the Craig etal. (2000) model had good test-retest reliability. Fatigue was associated with a decrease in the number of putts that were successfully holed and significant changes in the scaling strategies used by three of the golfers, along with a trend for increasing the putterhead velocity at ball impact. These motor control changes in performance when fatigued were evident in successful putts indicating that even when these elite golfers were able to achieve the goal of holing the putt, moderate levels of fatigue were influencing the consistency of their performance. Theoretical implications for the Craig etal. (2000) model and practical implications for elite golfers are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 3 8%
Professor 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 15 41%
Psychology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Energy 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 14 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2020.
All research outputs
#6,130,113
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,818
of 29,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,223
of 305,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#88
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.