↓ Skip to main content

Taekwondo Fighting in Training Does Not Simulate the Affective and Cognitive Demands of Competition: Implications for Behavior and Transfer

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Taekwondo Fighting in Training Does Not Simulate the Affective and Cognitive Demands of Competition: Implications for Behavior and Transfer
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00025
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A. Maloney, Ian Renshaw, Jonathon Headrick, David T. Martin, Damian Farrow

Abstract

Enhancing practice design is critical to facilitate transfer of learning. Considerable research has focused on the role of perceptual information in practice simulation, yet has neglected how affect and cognition are shaped by practice environments and whether this influences the fidelity of behavior (Headrick et al., 2015). This study filled this gap by examining the fidelity of individual (cognition, affect, and actions) and interpersonal behavior of 10 highly skilled Australian Taekwondo athletes fighting in training compared to competition. Interpersonal behavior was assessed by tracking location coordinates to analyze distance-time coordination tendencies of the fighter-fighter system. Individual actions were assessed through notational analysis and approximate entropy calculations of coordinate data to quantify the (un)predictability of movement displacement. Affect and cognition were assessed with mixed-methods that included perceptual scales measuring anxiety, arousal, and mental effort, and post-fight video-facilitated confrontational interviews to explore how affect and cognitions might differ. Quantitative differences were assessed with mixed models and dependentt-tests. Results reveal that individual and interpersonal behavior differed between training and competition. In training, individuals attacked less (d= 0.81,p< 0.05), initiated attacks from further away (d= -0.20,p< 0.05) and displayed more predictable movement trajectories (d= 0.84,p< 0.05). In training, fighters had lower anxiety (d= -1.26,p< 0.05), arousal (d= -1.07,p< 0.05), and mental effort (d= -0.77,p< 0.05). These results were accompanied by changes in interpersonal behavior, with larger interpersonal distances generated by the fighter-fighter system in training (d= 0.80,p< 0.05). Qualitative data revealed the emergence of cognitions and affect specific to the training environment, such as reductions in pressure, arousal, and mental challenge. Findings highlight the specificity of performer-environment interactions. Fighting in training affords reduced affective and cognitive demands and a decrease in action fidelity compared to competition. In addition to sampling information, representative practice needs to consider modeling the cognitions and affect of competition to enhance transfer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 36 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 36 31%
Psychology 14 12%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 42 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 04 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,282,760
of 25,589,756 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,675
of 34,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,789
of 450,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#70
of 529 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,589,756 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 450,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 529 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.