|
|
|
Light, powerful
wireless systems allow highly flexible neurovideofeedback™! |
|
Now featuring Neurovideofeedback™--monitoring
both the body and the brain!
Twelve
types of training
with the Peak Achievement Trainer
|
|
Peak
Achievement Training®
Customers Include:
*The Resilience Institute
for Performance Improvement, Pricewaterhouse Coopers
*David Leadbetter Golf
Academy
* United States
Army's Centers for
Enhanced Performance
* United States Olympic
Training Center
* U.S. Office of Personnel
Management
* Norwegian Olympic Training Center
* U.S. Army National
Marksmanship Team
* Taiwanese Olympic Team
* Top Executives of a Fortune 500 Healthcare Company
* A recent Super Bowl
championship team
* Major League Baseball
star pitcher
* PGA Tour Golfers
* Olympic Silver
Medalist Swimmer
*Professional Strength
and Conditioning Coach
* Boston University
*
Canadian National Olympic
Sport Centers, Toronto and Regina
* Ernest &Young, LLP
*Australian Special Forces
* LGE Performance
Systems
* Penn State University
* St. Lawrence University
* Singapore Olympic Sports
Council
*
Swing Solutions, Inc.
* University College,
Dublin, Ireland
* University of Hawaii
* University of
Madrid
* University of
Nebraska
* University Of North Texas
* University of Pittsburgh
* University of Western
Sydney - Australia
* Vanderbilt University
* Virginia Tech
* Washington
University,
St. Louis, Missouri
* Wingate Institute of
Sports & Physical Education, Israel
*
Numerous other individual athletes, sport psychologists, schools,
companies, therapists, and the general public
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
 |
|
| |
|
Study shows the Benefits of Peak Achievement
Training and
Stress Management for New Learning |
Dr. Steve Radlo and his associates compared students from two classes, a
stress management class and an aerobics class (control). The students in the
stress management class were also given 15 sessions of Peak Achievement
Training of 15 minutes duration. A pair of students, one from each class,
were then brought in for competitive testing in a new situation--underhanded
dart throwing,. The data showed that the stress management and Peak
Achievement Training group won 11 of 12 matches, focused better, and threw
closer to the bull's eye. The study was presented at the meeting of the
North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity in
2005:
"Effects of a Stress Management Program and Biofeedback
on Learning in a Competitive Environment"
Steven J. Radlo, Randy Hyllegard and Masayuki Yamamoto |
|
| |
Introduction
Often, students learning new motor skills or information in physical
education classes are required to demonstrate achievement in tests or
competitions. During times such as these, it is not uncommon to see a
learner “choke” under pressure and produce performance not truly indicative
of what they are capable of. Learning how to become optimally ready to
perform and effectively cope with stress are important aspects in the
development of skilled performance of cognitive and motor tasks.
|
 |
|
| |
During stressful times (e.g., competition), the
release of extraneous catecholamines and stress hormones can lead to a loss
in concentration and attentional focus, memory lapses, and high arousal
levels (Orlick, 1986; Rotella & Lerner, 1993; Zaichowsky & Takenaka, 1993).
The use of biofeedback has been shown to be an effective method for
monitoring and regulating arousal. The ability to demonstrate to the learner
his or her stress/tension and concentration levels before and during
performance is extremely enlightening and very important, practical
information. Essentially, this is the role of biofeedback. One such
biofeedback instrument is The Peak Achievement Trainer (PAT). The PAT is
used to provide instantaneous easy-to-interpret information that can be used
by performers as they freely engage in their activity. Just as important is
the fact that the PAT is portable and user-friendly. Coaches, sport
psychologists, and physical educators from major universities, professional
teams, and the Olympic Training Center have put their stamp of approval on
the validity of the PAT. Many have even used it on the sidelines of sporting
events to help athletes monitor and modify their stress levels. A unique
feature of the PAT is its ability to dissect attention into two
sub-components: arousal and concentration. Relaxing more intensely inhibits
or lowers the amplitude of this signal. The signal is filtered online and
thus allows the coach and athlete to see and hear when the amplitude of the
signal is approaching an optimal level of arousal. Ideally, individuals
should perform within a frequency of 8-13 Hz, a relaxed yet alert state
known as Alpha. Additionally, another graph on the computer screen will
instantaneously show if the person is in an optimal state of concentration,
measured by the number of 40 Hz spikes.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of a stress
management program and the use of biofeedback on skill acquisition during
competition. The task participants will learn is underhand dart throwing.
Stress will be induced by using monetary incentives and head-to-head
competition. It is hypothesized that participants engaged in the 15-week
stress management program and using the PAT will perform with greater
accuracy and consistency and spend a significantly greater proportion of
their time in alpha (a measure of arousal) and produce a greater proportion
of 40 Hz activity (a measure of focused concentration) than their control
counterparts.
|
|
| |
Method
Participants
University students (N=24) volunteered to participate in the study. Half
of these participants were randomly drawn from stress management classes and
served as the experimental group. The other half were randomly drawn from
personal fitness classes and served as the control group. All students were
asked to read and sign an informed consent during the first day.
Participants in the stress management group, aside from taking the 15-week
stress management class, were also engaged in 15 min of biofeedback using
the PAT per week.
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-II (CSAI-II)
The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-II (Martens, et al., 1990) was
administered to all participants before they engaged in the motor task and
midway through competition. The CSAI-II is a multi-dimensional scale that is
believed to assess somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and state
self-confidence. The scale consists of 27 questions (three nine-item
subscales) arranged on a four-point Likert scale.
Motor Task
Underhand dart throwing was the task used to determine the effectiveness
of the stress management protocol and the biofeedback. Having participants
perform this type of novel task ensured that all participants were equal in
their motor ability. Standard darts weighing approximately 10 g and 12 cm
long, were used and the dart board painted with a white background and black
vertical (9) and horizontal (9) lines painted over top to form a grid. Each
line was 5 cm apart and numbered 1-9 (+ or - depending on the x,y coordinate
location). A masking tape line was placed on the floor approximately 365 cm
(10 ft) from the dart board. Participants were asked to stand behind this
line when throwing. Throws were made underhanded at a dart board located
91.44 cm (5 ft) above the floor.
Procedures
On the day of testing, two participants (one experimental, one control)
were led to the Human Performance Laboratory at Western Illinois University.
The participants were told that they would be competing against each other
(both participants were of the same gender). The participants were informed
that if their score was better than their opponent, then they would win $20,
to be paid that day. Furthermore, if they hit the bull’s eye twice in a row
they would receive $10 for each time they did so. Additionally, all winners’
names were put in a drawing for a $300 cash prize to be awarded after
testing was completed. The participants then complete the CSAI-II. Upon
completing the questionnaire, the participant-to-be-tested put the PAT
headware on, while the other not-to-be-tested participant put on a similar,
non-functional cap. After 6 practice throws, the not-to-be-tested
participant threw his/her 3 darts first, followed by the to-be-tested
participant. Scores were recorded and reported to the participants after
each trial block. 15 blocks of 3 throws were completed for a total of 45
throws for each participant. Testing time was approximately 30 min. Once
testing was completed, the participants were debriefed about the experiment
and any questions they may have were answered.
|
|
| |
Results
CSAI-II
The pretest/posttest scores for the three sub-scales, cognitive anxiety,
somatic anxiety, and self-confidence, were analyzed using a repeated
measures, MANOVA with Groups (Stress Management/Biofeedback (SM), Control
(C)) as a between-subjects factor and Pretest/Protest as the repeated
measures. The multivariate test for the Groups x Pretest/Posttest
interaction was significant, Wilks’ λ = .27, F(1, 23) = 32.36, p<.001, η˛ =
.73. Examination of the univariate F-tests showed that this interaction was
significant for all three sub-scale categories, cognitive anxiety, F(1,23) =
41.90, p<.001, somatic anxiety, F(1,23) = 44.13, p<.001, and
self-confidence, F(1, 23) = 30.71, p<.001. Simple effects conducted for the
Groups x Pretest/Posttest interaction revealed that for the cognitive
anxiety items, participants in the C condition rated themselves higher (M =
22.5, SD = 2.89) than participants in the SM condition (M = 18.35, SD =
2.23) for the posttest. For the somatic anxiety questions, dart throwers in
the C group scored higher (M = 24.2, SD = 3.75) than those in the SM group
(M = 18.8, SD = 1.99) for the posttest. Finally, for the self-confidence
items, C participants perceived themselves as less confident (M = 21.1, SD =
2.15) than the SM participants (M = 24.00, SD = 1.75).
Performance Scores
A paired-samples T-test was used to analyze performance differences
(absolute error) between the SM and C group. The test showed the two groups
were significantly different, t(11) = -2.69, p<.05. The SM group was more
accurate (M = 5.49, SEM = .34) than the C group (M = 6.29, SEM = .31). See
Figure 1. With regard to head-to-head competition, the SM group defeated the
C group 11-1. Furthermore, the amount of time participants spent in optimal
concentration (5 s before each dart throw) showed that the SM group spent
71% of their time optimally concentrating as opposed to the C group, which
spent 55% of their time concentrating optimally.
|
|
| |
| Comparison of the Absolute Error Scores |
Comparison of Concentration Times |
 |
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Discussion
Overall, findings suggest that individuals learning a self-paced motor
task during stressful situations will experience performance benefits when
using a stress management program and the Peak Achievement Trainer (PAT).
Oftentimes, students in a physical education class or youngsters learning a
novel sport skill will be asked to perform that skill in front of others or
in competition-like situations. It is not uncommon to see individuals in
“pressure” situations such as these “choke” and produce sub-par
performances. Learning theorists propose that this is so because stress,
coupled with the early stages of learning, decreases attentional capacity
and focus, while at the same time increasing nervousness and memory lapses (Fitts
& Posner, 1967; Maxwell, Masters & Eves, 2000). In extreme cases, if an
individual is faced with competitive, stressful situations on a relatively
frequent basis, the effects of these stressors could become debilitating and
cause the individual to quit or drop out of the sport or activity (Anderson
& Cole, 2001; Brustad, 1993; Cox, 2002; Smith, 1986).
One reason for why it is believed that the stress management program was
effective was in the preperformance routine that was taught. Participants
using the stress management program were taught to perform with a “quiet”
mind, minimizing internal and external distractors. This approach has been
professed in Singer’s (2002) Five-Step Strategy and has been shown to have a
great deal of success in the learning and enhancement of self-paced motor
activities. Other elements of the stress management program likely play a
role in enhancing the learning of a novel skill such as underhand dart
throwing. Participants were taught what stress is and how to identify it, as
well as coping strategies. Techniques such as general meditation,
diaphragmatic breathing, imagery, autogenic training, progressive muscular
relaxation, positive self-talk, and cognitive restructuring likely
contributed to the superior performance exhibited by the SM group. These
participants were also taught a specific preperformance routine to help them
be in an optimal ready state and focused on the task at hand.
Along with the stress management program, students were trained using the
PAT biofeedback instrument. Biofeedback demonstrates to the learner his or
her current stress, tension, and concentration levels before and during
performance. These processes are typically subconscious, thus performers are
able to recognize when their arousal levels are too high or when
concentration is not at a premium. Through weekly sessions of PAT training,
participants were able to recognize, understand, and consequently moderate
their arousal and concentration skills using the techniques taught in the
stress management class. The PAT helped the participants in the SM group to
perform in a relaxed, yet alert state, and in a focused manner. SM
participants were able to maintain concentration levels for a longer period
of time during the 5 s before dart throw than the C group.
In summary, exploring effective stress management interventions could
combat potential deleterious effects imposed by competitive pressure by
mentally and physically tuning the performer to respond with a quiet, ready
mind. This state of readiness would minimize the cognitive processing of
irrelevant information and distractors at the time of motor initiation,
processing that would essentially degrade performance and is more
characteristic of beginners (Petruzzello, Landers, & Salazar, 1991).
Furthermore, results of this study showed that combining a stress management
protocol with biofeedback appeared to enhance the learning of a self-paced
motor skill. Ultimately, this research will contribute to understanding the
relationship between competitive stress and human performance.
|
|
| References
Anderson, E.D., & Cole, B.S. (2001). Stress factors related to reported
academic performance and burnout. Education, 108(4), 497-503.
Brustad, R.J. (1993). Youth in sport: Psychological considerations. In
R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on
sport psychology (pp. 695-717). New York: Macmillan.
Cox, R.H. (2002). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Fitts, P.M., & Posner, M.I. (1967). Human Performance. Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1990).
Development and validation of the competitive state anxiety inventory-2. In
R. Martens, R.S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport
(pp. 117-232). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Maxwell, J.P., Masters, R.W., & Eves, F.F. (2000). From novice to
know-how: A longitudinal study of implicit motor learning. Journal of Sport
Sciences, 18, 111-120.
Orlick, T.(1986). Psyching for sport. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.
Petruzzello, S.J., Landers, D.M., & Salazar, W. (1991). Biofeedback and
sport/exercise performance: Applications and limitations. Behavior Therapy,
22, 379-392.
Rotella, R.J., & Lerner, J.D. (1993). Responding to competitive pressure.
In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on
sport psychology (pp. 528-541). New York: Macmillan.
Singer, R.N. (2002). Preperformance state, routines, and automaticity:
What does it take to realize expertise in self-paced events? Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 359-375.
Smith, R.E. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic
burnout. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 36-50.
Zaichkowsky, L.D., & Takenaka, K. (1993). Optimizing arousal levels. In
R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on
sport psychology (pp. 511-527). New York: Macmillan.
|
| |
|
