External cueing influences drop jump performance in trained young soccer players

Original article written by Saldiam Barillas, Jon Oliver, Rhodri Lloyd and colleagues

Background

The ability to instruct and correct movement is a key part of a strength and conditioning coaches toolkit, and verbal cues are often used to achieve these. Cueing helps direct an athlete’s attentional focus to a particular feature of a movement ^[1]. Broadly speaking, verbal cues can be clustered into two main groups; internal cues, which encourage athletes to focus on their body movements, or external cues, which direct attention to the environment ^[2]. External cues have been shown to be more effective in increasing performance in adult populations ^[3]; however, less research has been conducted in children, and the interaction between physical and cognitive development and the effectiveness of different types of cueing remains unclear. In youth soccer players, external cueing has been shown to influence drop jump performance, with the nature of cue eliciting specific responses in a range of kinetic variables ^[4]. Specifically, contact cues reduced ground contact time, height cues increased jump height, whereas quiet landing cues reduced outcomes associated with injury ^[4].

What the authors did

In the current study, the authors examined how different external cues influenced force-time kinetics during isometric and dynamic tasks in youth. Fifteen adolescent male soccer players performed an isometric midthigh pull (IMTP), unloaded and loaded squat jumps (SJs) (15 and 30% of body mass), countermovement jump (CMJ), and drop jump (DJ). Exercise tests were performed in the same order on each testing day, with IMTP, followed by the DJ, and ending with the CMJ on day 1, and the three SJ protocols (0% BW, 15% BW and 30% BW) on day 2.

Following the key instructions at the start of each test (e.g., ready position for IMTP, and staying still for CMJ and SJ) one of three cues were given (external force-specific, external velocity-specific, or neutral-control – see table 1), then the verbal command “ready, set, go.” Participants completed two trials for each cue condition, with the best trial being used for analysis.

What the authors found

The authors found that the type of cue used influences the test outcome, depending on the type of test being performed. Figure 1 shows the influence of the three different cues on jump height, ground contract time, and reactive strength index.

Using a force cue significantly increases jump height during the CMJ (g = 0.43; p = 0.02) and DJ (g = 0.52; p = 0.03) when compared with a velocity cue, while using a neutral cue also increases jump height in the CMJ (g = 0.43; p = 0.02) compared with a velocity cue. However, unsurprisingly, using a velocity cue significantly reduced GCT in the CMJ (g = 1.12–1.52; p < 0.05) and DJ (g = 0.73–1.37; p < 0.05) compared to both other cues, and also significantly increased RSI in the CMJ (g = 1.50; p < 0.001) and DJ (g = 0.55; p = 0.02) compared with the force cue.

Figure 2 shows the influence of the three different cues on peak force (PF), time to peak force (tPF), peak rate of force development (PRFD) and time to PRFD (tPRFD).

Interestingly, the type of cue had no significant effect on PF, tPF, or PRFD during the IMTP and SJ. However, using the velocity cue improved PF, tPF, and PRFD in the CMJ (g = 0.85–1.29; p < 0.05) and DJ (g = 0.50–1.17; p < 0.05). The influence of cue type on power, velocity and impulse measures are shown in figure 3.

There was no effect on SJ performance from the different cues, but the velocity cue resulted in higher peak power, propulsive and braking mean power during the DJ (g = 0.33–0.59; p < 0.03). Using the velocity cue also increased propulsive mean power during the CMJ (g = 0.55; p < 0.001). Interestingly, using a force cue significantly increased braking impulse, and peak velocity in the DJ (g = 0.46–0.66; p < 0.01) when compared with both other cues, and also increased peak velocity in the CMJ (g = 0.51; p = 0.01) when compared with a velocity cue.

Limitations

As with all cueing research, it is difficult to study the exact impact of certain cues, as they can be interpreted differently by individual athletes. With this in mind, comparing the group differences between specific cues used can be difficult. Additionally, as the authors have identified, the accuracy of the cues used within the current study could be questioned. The velocity focused cue actually resulted in a decrease in velocity during the CMJ and DJ. Therefore, considering cues to be force or velocity specific may be indicative of a time-specific change (e.g., a velocity cue reduces the time of a task, whereas a force cue would increase the time of the task) instead of how it improves force and velocity outcomes.

What this means for coaches

The results from this study highlight that performance during a range of tests can be influenced by the cues athletes receive. This can have a number of practical applications, for example, the type of adaptation from the exercise can be altered based in the cues used. Using a velocity focused external cue results in shorter GCT, and increased RSI. However, using a force focused external cue to reach for the ceiling results in greater jump heights during the CMJ and DJ. From a different perspective, coaches need to exercise caution with the cues they use during testing and monitoring, as performance can be altered based on cues given. Therefore, cueing should be standardised during periods of data collection for all athletes.

Reviewer’s comment

There is limited research into cueing, especially in youth athletes, and as it is a major aspect of coaching, it is good to see more being conducted. There are many practical take homes from this research paper, and highlights how coaches can alter their language to change the outcome of tasks.

Recommended resources

• Listen – Communicating with athletes; cueing, analogies, and self reflection – Nick Winkelman
• Watch – What we say matters – Uncovering the truth about cueing – Nick Winkelman