Author(s): NAZZARO, G., CARSON, H.J., BOBROWNICKI, R., BORDAS, J.V., CURZI, D., BERTOLLO, M., POMPA, D., Institution: UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI , Country: ITALY, Abstract-ID: 1717

INTRODUCTION:
Evidence from a Bayesian meta-analysis1 highlighted potential methodological biases within longstanding psychological research, thus challenging the widely accepted understanding of superior external focus of attention (EF) effects on motor performance. A subsequent systematic review2 revealed limitations in research on EF effects on lower-limb strength in athletes and the quality of associated findings. Addressing these concerns, Pompa et al.’s3 exploratory study showed that focusing on idiosyncratic core action components (ICC) may be more effective than both generally task-relevant EF and internal focus (IF) strategies during explosive isometric back squat performance, whereas no differences were observed for squat jump performance. Uncertainty remains, however, regarding whether focus of attention (FOA) strategies are effective in explosive tasks with short execution times. Therefore, this study examined the effects of three FOA strategies (ICC, EF, and IF) on repeated rebound jump (RRJ) performance in basketball athletes. The repeated nature of the task may provide a longer temporal window for attentional processes to influence execution compared to previous single explosive efforts.
METHODS:
Twenty-one national-level U19 basketball players (Tier 3.4) performed five consecutive RRJ under each FOA condition on a force plate sampling at 1000 Hz. Variables included total time (TT), total impulse (TIm) and mean force (mF). All variables were analyzed using one-way repeated-measures ANOVA. When significant main effects were observed, Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed. Statistical significance was set at p < .05.
RESULTS:
Significant main effects common to both averaged and best jump trial were observed for TT (paverage = .020; pbest < .001) and mF (paverage = .028; pbest = .023). Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons showed that TT decreased for ICC compared to EF (paverage = .015; pbest = .003) but not IF (paverage = .999; pbest = .790). mF increased for ICC compared to EF in the best trial (p = .022) and compared to IF in the averaged trials (p = .036). For the averaged trials, significant main effects were observed for TIm (p = .010). Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc comparisons showed that TIm increased for EF compared to IF (p = .037) but not compared to ICC (p = .412). No statistically significant effects were observed for TIm in the best jump trial.
CONCLUSION:
These findings suggest that ICC may influence movement execution time without reducing force production. Overall, these results support the potential effectiveness of ICC during repeated explosive efforts, potentially contributing to lower-limb strength development in athletes.

References:
1McKay et al., 2024. Psychol Bull, 150(11), 1347–1362.
2Pompa et al., 2024. J Strength Cond Res, 38(2), 419–434.
3Pompa et al., 2025. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 20(9), 1278–1284.
4McKay et al., 2022. Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 17(2), 317–331.