False-performance feedback does not affect punching forces and pacing of elite boxers

Israel Halperin, Dale W. Chapman, Kevin G. Thompson, Chris Abbiss

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    10 Citations (Scopus)


    Prior research indicates that providing participants with positive augmented feedback tends to enhance motor learning and performance, whereas the opposite occurs with negative feedback. However, the majority of studies were conducted with untrained participants performing unfamiliar motor tasks and so it remains unclear if elite athletes completing familiar tasks respond in a similar fashion. Thus, this study investigated the effects of three different versions of false-performance feedback on punching force (N), pacing (force over time) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) in 15 elite amateur male boxers. Athletes completed a simulated boxing bout consisting of three rounds with 84 maximal effort punches delivered to a punching integrator on four separate days. Day one was a familiarisation session in which no feedback was provided. In the following three days athletes randomly received false-positive, false-negative and false-neutral feedback on their punching performance between each round. No statistical or meaningful differences were observed in punching forces, pacing or RPE between conditions (P > 0.05; ≤ 2%). These null results could stem from the elite status of the athletes involved, the focus on performance rather than learning, or they may indicate that false feedback has a less potent effect on performance than previously thought.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)59-66
    Number of pages8
    JournalJournal of Sports Sciences
    Issue number1
    Publication statusPublished - 2019


    Dive into the research topics of 'False-performance feedback does not affect punching forces and pacing of elite boxers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this