Study Spotlight: Internal vs. External Cues for Rowing Performance
“Don't Think About Your Movements: Effects of Attentional Instructions on Rowing Performance” (2015)
I wrote about this study in my recent “Strength Coach Thoughts on ‘The Drive’” post and want to come back to it for some more takeaways. In this 2015 study on 18 experienced college-aged female and male rowers, researchers found that an internal cue of “pay attention to the leg push” delivered audibly every 30 seconds resulted in worse efficiency when erging than an external cue of watching a video of the stern and a control condition of no cue at all.
I used this study to support the concept of “think on land, feel on water,” and why I do not address glute actions when teaching rowers about the drive phase (or anything else, for that matter). Catch up on that post and then read on for more details and takeaways from this study.
Research Question: Do internal cues, external cues, or no cues improve submaximal rowing efficiency as measured by oxygen consumption (VO2) at a consistent power output?
Subjects: 18 highly trained competitive rowers, 12 male and 6 female, average age 20.5, training for around 12 hours a week over 6 sessions per week.
Procedure: The researchers tested rowers individually on three sets of eight minutes erging at 70% of their most recent 2km test pace. The first two minutes of each trial were intended to dial in their pacing, directed by the researchers. The rowers did not have pacing feedback during the evaluation minutes 3-8 to avoid feedback interference. The researchers note that the rowers could hold their pace with minimal feedback, and that all rowers stayed within an acceptable range throughout the trials.
Rowers had one minute of rest between each trial, during which they received their attentional instructions for the next trial, gave a rate of perceived exertion (RPE) recording, and took a blood lactate reading. Researchers collected oxygen consumption data via metabolic cart, as well as heart rate.
Rowers performed the three trials in different orders with an audio recording of the focus reminder every 30 seconds:
Internal focus: Audio recording of, “pay attention to the leg push and how your legs are stretching”
External focus: Video of the stern while rowing from the rower’s perspective, with audio recording of, “pay attention to the environment in the video”
Control: No attentional focus beyond maintaining pace, no audio recording
Results:
The researchers found no significant differences in average watts between minutes 3 and 8 of each condition. This indicates that the rowers successfully held their pace during the observation phase of each trial. Therefore, any changes in oxygen consumption are related to increased or decreased efficiency of movement, not a change in intensity.
Average oxygen consumption (VO2) in minutes 3-8 was highest in the internal focus condition (41.50), then the external focus condition (40.68), then control condition (40.53). Heart rate was highest in the internal condition (158.38), then the external condition (156.47), then control (155.47). Blood lactate was highest in the internal condition (1.38), followed by control (1.25), then external (1.23).
More oxygen consumption, higher heart rate, and greater blood lactate concentrations indicates that the rowers worked hardest to hold the same pace in the internal condition compared to external or control conditions.
Athletes reported the highest RPE on the external condition (11/20), then the internal condition (10.89/20), then control (9.44/20). External and internal are very close, so this suggests that it was easiest for athletes to focus on holding a consistent pace when they weren’t receiving audible feedback at all.
Limitations:
The way the researchers presented the cues introduces a few key limitations with influence on takeaways for coaching and training.
The internal cue is a bit odd. I’ve never heard a coach say, “pay attention to how your legs are stretching,” and I’m not really sure what it even means. “Leg push” is common and salient enough, though, for drive propulsion. Perhaps “leg stretch” is intended for the hamstrings and rocking over on the release.
The external cue of, “pay attention to the environment,” is only kind of an external cue. An audible cue of, “push the puddles away,” would be more salient and, to me, would actually qualify as an external cue rather than the more abstract visual feedback. The rowers could have been thinking about anything while “paying attention to the environment.”
The researchers made the video of the stern present for all conditions, “in order to keep everything in the environment constant, solely changing focus of attention by the specific instructions.” I can appreciate the intent, but it does mean that the only difference between trials was just the audio recording directing the rowers’ attention.
Finally, the erg is a simplified sport environment and this study only focuses on the hold-your-watts submaximal output performance. We cannot use this study to assess the influence of internal or external cues with regard to technique or max-effort performance. We know that technique affects on-water performance more than erg performance, so we’re limited in how directly we can transfer the results across training conditions.
Takeaways:
The researchers note the similarity of control group and external group performance, and conclude that it was much more that the internal cue detracted from performance than the external cue enhanced performance. This makes sense considering the limitations of how they presented the cues. I read this most as an indictment of confusing verbal feedback, and then as part of the trend for external cues outperforming internal cues.
The rowers performed most efficiently when they were just erging and watching the video of the stern, with no audible feedback other than instruction to maintain pace. We should seriously consider the implications of this finding as coaches. “Less talking while athletes are working” is a phrase that I’ve wholeheartedly adopted, especially in light of this 2011 study about rowing coaches’ self-awareness of verbal feedback timing, nature, and intent. Coaches often aren’t aware of exactly what we say, when we say it, and how exactly athletes are supposed to act on it, and there are markedly worse outcomes when we deliver confusing verbal feedback while athletes are performing a skill. It is almost always better to wait for athletes to finish the task to give feedback and discuss.
This research suggests that saying nothing at all is better for simple hold-your-watts performance than internal cues about specific muscle actions. My takeaway is that when we do give verbal feedback during an output-focused task, it should be externally focused rather than internally focused.
The cues we use only need to be salient for the rowers. They don’t always make sense literally, so it’s especially helpful to clarify these ahead of time. “Push the puddles” should yield better drive-phase propulsive results than “push with the legs.” “Tick-tock” at the release (like a metronome) may be better than “sit up straight,” and should be better than “engage the abs.” I like “hug the horizon” for a sculler’s wide catch angle much more than “keep the shoulders down.” Given the differences between erging for watts and rowing for sport performance, these may be best used during a piece or racing performance context than in an instructional context.
