↓ Skip to main content

Is Mixed Practice More Effective than Physical Practice Alone for the Acquisition of Non-dominant Side Kicking Performance?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Is Mixed Practice More Effective than Physical Practice Alone for the Acquisition of Non-dominant Side Kicking Performance?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01665
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kylie A. Steel, Eathan Ellem

Abstract

Perceiving and executing unfamiliar movements, such as left handed/footed movement skills in sports, places additional demands on the perceptual-cognitive system of players that may increase errors. The video self-modeling (VSM) method may provide an accessible solution to this issue, therefore the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the VSM method on the improvement of a non-preferred side kicking task. N = 28 participants engaged in one of three conditions; Mirror reversed/ physical practice (PP), best-of/ PP, or physical practice only. Though not significant, data analysis indicated improved kicking accuracy for all groups, with VSM groups showing the most improvement. However, qualitative data revealed the "best-of" group demonstrated more positive views toward their progress compared to other groups, and both VSM groups were more likely to attend to movement cues than target based cues. These trends may suggest merit for the use of VSM techniques, though its application and the source of mechanistic factors warrant further investigation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 13 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Decision Sciences 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#14,282,319
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,171
of 30,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,847
of 313,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#289
of 459 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 313,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 459 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.