THE BRAIN LEARNS TO LIFT: THE SCIENCE OF MOTOR SKILL ACQUISITION IN STRONGMAN | Episode 8: Motor Feedback: How Much Information Should an Athlete Receive, and When?

Motor Feedback: How Much Information Should an Athlete Receive, and When?

After an Atlas stone attempt, a coach immediately tells the athlete that the stone moved too far from the torso. Was the information useful, unnecessary, or delivered at the wrong moment? The answer depends on what the athlete already sensed, the message's precision, and the goal of the next attempt. Feedback refers to information about action or its consequences that can support evaluation and behavioral adjustment. In strongman, the body continuously receives proprioceptive, tactile, visual, and vestibular information; coaches, recordings, stopwatches, and sensors provide additional external information. This distinction matters because athletes must learn to use both their own sensations and supplementary measurements rather than depend entirely on the coach's voice. This episode does not repeat the explicit-versus-implicit learning debate. Its question is when, how, and with what precision information about an attempt should be delivered. The goal is not the maximum amount of explanation but a greater ability to detect consequential errors and perform independently within the real constraints of heavy objects [1–3].

Intrinsic feedback arises from the sensory consequences of one's own movement: feeling a farmer's handle slip, sensing yoke oscillation, or seeing a log deviate from the intended path. Augmented feedback comes from an additional source, such as a verbal cue, display, audible signal, or external time measurement. Augmented information is not automatically more accurate. A poorly positioned camera can conceal rotation, and a coach can misidentify the cause of slipping. Intrinsic feedback is not infallible either, especially when the task is unfamiliar or sensation is dominated by the load. The two sources sometimes complement each other and sometimes conflict. If an athlete believes a stone reached the platform securely but the recording shows incomplete clearance, the discrepancy deserves investigation. If grip loss is felt before video shows an obvious change, tactile information may offer an earlier warning. Effective instruction connects each signal to observable outcomes instead of declaring either source universally superior. Coaches should be explicit about which measurements are objective and which are interpretations [2,4].

Motor-learning research distinguishes knowledge of results, or KR, from knowledge of performance, or KP. KR describes how an attempt turned out relative to a defined goal. 'The stone was loaded in 11.2 seconds' or 'the twenty-meter course was completed without stopping' can be KR. KP describes characteristics of the movement: 'there was a pause between the lap and final extension' or 'the first steps increased frame oscillation.' A comment can combine both, but the combination should serve a purpose. KR alone may not tell an athlete how to address a persistent technical limitation; excessively detailed KP can obscure the objective. Moreover, observing a knee angle does not demonstrate that the angle caused failure. A coach should separate description from causal hypothesis. 'The stone moved away from the torso' is an observation; 'that is why the attempt failed' is an explanation requiring scrutiny. This discipline protects training from the false precision that can accompany confident biomechanical language [1,3].

Feedback also differs by timing. Concurrent information is available during an action, whereas terminal feedback comes afterward. During a slow, manageable, low-risk task, an ongoing signal may permit immediate correction. During a fast heavy lift, a lengthy cue delivered during acceleration can arrive too late or compete with important balance and contact signals. This does not establish a universal prohibition against vocal cues during strongman. Brief directions or stop commands may be required for safety. Routine technical instruction and emergency intervention have different purposes, however. After an attempt, the athlete can analyze without simultaneously handling the load. Another issue concerns the delay between effort and feedback. Allowing a short opportunity for self-assessment can create a useful comparison with the coach's observations. Research does not establish one universally superior delay in seconds across all movement tasks, and time prescriptions should not be imported uncritically into extreme-load events [1,2].

A coach who corrects every attempt may sometimes generate visible within-session gains, yet the athlete may become less inclined to identify errors independently. The guidance hypothesis proposes that constant augmented feedback can support immediate performance and, in some circumstances, undermine independent learning. It should not be converted into a universal rule. A 2022 meta-analysis by McKay and colleagues involving sixty-one eligible papers and more than two thousand participants found no significant overall advantage of reduced feedback frequency and no necessary reversal from acquisition to retention. Substantial heterogeneity, uncertainty, and limited statistical power weakened general conclusions. Consequently, 'provide feedback only every third repetition and learning will automatically improve' is not evidence-based. A better question is whether the athlete begins to recognize meaningful deviations and whether feedback reliably changes subsequent performance. Frequency matters only insofar as its consequences are demonstrated in the relevant task [3].

Essential safety information should never be withheld from a novice to comply with an arbitrary feedback schedule. When equipment is unstable or the area into which a stone may fall is not clear, the coach intervenes immediately. Research on feedback frequency primarily examines optimization of learning in controlled tasks; it is not an instruction to omit necessary warnings. Once safety is established, the dose of technical correction can reflect experience. An athlete who already identifies a minor timing error may first be asked what they noticed. Someone repeatedly misinterpreting a consequential error may benefit from direct guidance. The criterion in both cases is the effect on control and independence, not rigid adherence to a prescribed frequency. Responsible coaching separates technical instruction, performance assessment, and immediate hazard warnings. Combining them under one apparently simple feedback rule produces recommendations poorly suited to extreme-load sport [1–3].

Frequency, summary schedules, and feedback autonomy

Feedback frequency cannot be determined independently of error severity and precision. When an athlete repeats the same consequential stone-transition error, a clear intervention may be appropriate even after the first attempt. When minor variation occurs despite consistent success, a coach may allow several attempts without comment to assess independent regulation. These choices do not prove an optimal percentage; they represent adjustment to observed consequences. A 2024 experiment in postural control compared feedback following 0%, 33%, 67%, or 100% of trials and reported specific benefits in the 67% group on some tests without superior transfer between groups. Applying the number '67%' directly to Atlas Stones would be unjustified because task, participants, and outcomes differ. This result does not logically contradict the 2022 meta-analysis: one protocol may favor a frequency while a heterogeneous pooled literature remains inconclusive overall. The lesson for training is to examine the local effect rather than turn an experimental percentage into a universal law [3,5].

Summary feedback provides information after several attempts instead of reviewing each repetition separately. During a log session, a coach might examine four attempts and identify a pattern: time required to stabilize the rack increases when the athlete rushes cylinder rotation. A possible benefit is fewer interruptions and attention to a meaningful trend rather than random trial-to-trial fluctuation. A disadvantage arises if a serious error continues without intervention. Summary feedback is not appropriate for delaying a stop when technique becomes hazardous. An average time may also conceal an important exceptional attempt in which control was lost. Both the overall pattern and individual consequential events should therefore remain visible. No direct evidence demonstrates that summarizing every four attempts universally beats feedback after each repetition in strongman. The interval should reflect ability, task difficulty, and failure consequences, and its value should be checked during later attempts without commentary [1–3].

Bandwidth feedback involves deciding in advance which deviations are acceptable and intervening when an outcome exceeds that range. For a farmer's walk, the threshold should reflect the task: if the objective is uninterrupted completion, an unexpected stop may deserve attention, whereas a minor elbow-position difference with no observable consequence may not. During stone lifting, loss of contact is likely more consequential than a small postural variation. Thresholds therefore depend on goals and physical risk. Proposing one universal five-degree hip-angle limit would be scientifically indefensible without a validated relation between that angle and the required outcome. When a bandwidth rule is used, athletes should understand what is being monitored and why. Effectiveness is measured through reduction in meaningful errors and independent recognition of deviations, not merely because the coach speaks less. Such an approach is a way to organize information rather than an automatic guarantee of durable learning [1,2].

Self-controlled feedback allows learners to request information when they believe it would be useful. It does not mean coaches abandon safety standards or assume that athletes always interpret movement correctly. Rather, in safe conditions, athletes decide when an explanation or recording might help. A 2025 meta-analysis including twenty-nine studies and 1,147 participants reported advantages for self-controlled feedback during retention and transfer, without a clear general advantage during initial acquisition. Results differed across skill types and participant characteristics. The findings do not imply that requesting feedback after every trial is ideal or that all benefits come exclusively from autonomy. Some comparisons used yoked groups receiving an identical information schedule without choosing it. Such designs help separate information amount from choice, although motivational and cognitive mechanisms remain difficult to isolate. A cautious strongman application is to ask whether the athlete wants a particular attempt reviewed and then examine a clearly defined performance outcome [6].

Feedback between athletes has distinctive limitations. A knowledgeable teammate may correctly notice that a log failed to stabilize in the rack while mistakenly treating a personal technical preference as a universal rule. An athlete with different body proportions may use an effective solution for themselves that is unsuitable for someone else. Peer observations should therefore describe observable events: 'during the second repetition the cylinder rotated farther before stabilizing.' 'Do exactly what I do' is not a sufficient explanation. Video may help verify the description without automatically establishing causal diagnosis. When several coaches are present, having one person deliver immediate cues can reduce contradictory commands, with deeper discussion reserved for rest. This is an organizational suggestion rather than a conclusion from comparative strongman trials. Its value depends on the clarity of information, management of risk, and opportunities to test the proposed change [2,4].

A feedback observation should be distinguished from a prescription for the next exercise. After a missed stone, a coach may notice that the implement slipped during the lap phase. This does not automatically demand extra back extensions or revision of the entire weekly program. The cause could involve stone surface, hand placement, fatigue, or inadequate force. Programming decisions require additional evidence about recovery, performance across sessions, and intended goals. Treating one observation as sufficient for a major change can lead to unnecessary interventions. Conversely, one successful repetition does not demonstrate that every feature was effective. Feedback is an input to evaluation rather than a verdict on athletic capacity. Good coaching records the observation, forms a hypothesis, tests a safe adjustment, and revises the conclusion according to the observed result [1,4].

Verbal, video, auditory, and instrumented feedback: what is actually measured?

A stopwatch creates an appearance of objectivity, but its data require interpretation. A yoke time can be very precise when start and finish are detected automatically, whereas manual timing includes observer reaction error. Even an accurate time does not explain why performance changed: the athlete might accelerate faster, reduce stops, or modify how the frame is put down. Time feedback is knowledge of results, but phase analysis can turn that result into a technical question. If overall time improves while the first five meters become slower, the gain may have come from maintaining speed later in the course. Before issuing instructions, the coach should locate which section accounts for the difference. Feedback then moves beyond 'you were faster' toward describing where change occurred. A single result is not grounds for strong statistical conclusions, and small timing differences should be considered relative to the measurement method's uncertainty [1,2].

Video allows replay and comparison but does not automatically measure every important variable. Side footage can clarify log movement relative to the torso, while frontal footage may reveal lateral movement under a yoke. Frame rate, camera perspective, viewing distance, and the availability of a scale affect precision. Comparing a low camera angle with a high one can introduce apparent differences that reflect projection rather than actual joint movement. Coaches should restrict claims to what the image supports. 'The implement moved farther in front of the torso' may be visible, whereas 'the spinal extensors generated fifteen percent less torque' cannot be derived from an ordinary video. A short segment should be chosen to answer a defined question instead of making the athlete a permanent spectator of their own training. Independent correction remains the goal, and recording is a verification tool rather than a compulsory condition for every repetition [4,7].

Auditory feedback can mark rhythm, contact events, or time limits, but its meaning must first be learned. A beep signaling stable position may help in manageable technical tasks; the same sound can distract if it arrives during an unstable moment under a very heavy frame. Audio can be useful when looking at a display is impractical, yet it is not automatically faster or better for every task. The relationship between information and event matters more than abstract superiority of one sensory channel. A signal meaning only 'wrong' does not identify a correction and may increase confusion. A metronome used to support farmer's cadence could provide rhythmic information while potentially interfering with necessary adjustments during a turn. Heavy-load applications require caution and cannot replace perception of hazards. Research on auditory augmented feedback in other motor tasks does not establish universal rules for strongman events [2,4].

Wearables and force platforms can provide detailed graphs, but information density is not the same as teaching value. An inertial sensor estimates segment acceleration and requires calibration, while raw values do not establish whether a joint movement caused or responded to frame oscillation. A system estimating log velocity might help compare attempts at the same load when setup and measurement procedures are stable. Device disagreement, alignment error, and interpretation without a mechanical model can produce false conclusions. Showing ten graphs after each repetition may replace functional cues with data overload. A better approach selects a primary indicator justified by the technical limitation and checks it against task success or a clearly defined phase. The measurement tool should serve the question instead of creating a question merely to justify itself. Scientific precision requires valid methods as well as numerical output [1,4].

Electromyography is often invoked to explain 'muscle activation' in feedback, but it demands careful interpretation. Surface electrical amplitude is not identical to exact muscle force and can be influenced by electrode placement, muscle length, and fatigue. Comparing two attempts without controlling these factors does not establish greater efficiency or superior neural synergy. Telling an athlete 'the graph is greener' may sound sophisticated without explaining which meaningful action needs adjustment. Muscle recordings become more informative in research when combined with motion and external forces. In ordinary coaching, observable implement trajectory, contact quality, and repetition validity may be more directly connected to the goal. Sophisticated equipment can improve measurement only when indicator validity and the explanation derived from it are established [8].

Verbal feedback can be adapted quickly to the athlete's language, but it can become dense or ambiguous. 'Harder,' 'more explosive,' or 'more compact' may be interpreted differently. A more useful cue describes a testable change: 'stabilize the stone in the lap before final extension' or 'separate the frame from the floor before the first step without an unnecessary pause.' Even these examples are not universally suitable. Technical information cannot instantly create missing force capacity. When the limitation involves contact, a pacing cue may worsen performance. Coaches should identify the problem, offer an intelligible message, allow a controlled attempt, and examine the result. Repeating the same instruction more loudly adds no information. During extreme-load events, tone and timing should support safe decision making rather than pressuring athletes to continue regardless of bodily warning signals [1,2].

Event-specific feedback for stones, log, dumbbell, farmer's, and yoke

With Atlas Stones, useful feedback changes across phases. If contact fails before the stone leaves the ground, information about the grip and onset of slipping is more relevant than analyzing final extension that never occurred. If the stone reaches the lap securely but the transition is slow, phase duration and hand repositioning may deserve attention. If failure occurs at platform height, object geometry and force requirements should be examined rather than automatically blaming the first pull. Feedback should describe where the deviation appears. Athletes can be asked what they felt and then compare their report with recorded movement; differences may help calibrate perception without identifying a specific neural mechanism. With very heavy stones, repeatedly attempting corrections under severe fatigue can be unsafe. Reduced loads or partial technical drills may permit clearer testing when control deteriorates [1,7].

Log clean and press combines two goals that can be confused: reaching a stable supporting position and completing the overhead movement. An athlete may improve the clean without gaining overhead performance if pressing strength remains limiting. Conversely, stronger pressing can conceal an inefficient clean. Feedback should identify the phase. 'The cylinder reached the rack but paused before pressing' differs from 'the cylinder never stabilized against the body.' Simultaneously demanding a faster clean and a longer stabilization period may create conflicting instructions. Priority should reflect event rules and the actual limiting error. In technical practice, one phase-level indicator can be selected and checked across several attempts. When instability or pain occurs, the task should stop or become easier rather than treating a technical cue as an order to force another repetition [2,7].

Giant Dumbbell feedback may address separate problems: trajectory toward the shoulder, stability of unilateral loading, and final overhead control. Frontal video can reveal trunk deviation without proving that all deviation is incorrect. Some adjustments are functional compensation; others increase local demands or undermine balance. The difference must be evaluated in relation to the implement and outcome. An elbow-position cue might help an athlete who cannot establish support but does little when the handle is slipping. Coherent feedback answers one question: what change can be tested in the next safe attempt? New instructions should not be trialed under maximal loading when controlled lowering cannot be assured. Success with a differently proportioned dumbbell does not automatically establish transfer to competition equipment; equipment properties belong in the evaluation [1,7].

In farmer's walk, timing can show overall progress, but segmented feedback is more useful for choosing an intervention. If pickup costs two seconds and the athlete compensates during locomotion, a generic command to increase cadence misses the limitation. If the turn costs time, foot orientation and implement swing may be relevant. When grip fails, felt slipping and the moment of contact loss may be more informative than total time. Pickup, straight travel, turning, and interruptions should be measured consistently and separately. The coach need not invent a sophisticated biomechanical explanation for every fraction of a second. Timing error or a changed floor can explain some differences. Useful feedback remains proportional to measurement reliability and relevance to the competition objective [2,7].

In Yoke Walk, feedback about frame sway should recognize that oscillations can respond with a delay to stepping changes. An athlete who rushes early steps and later stops due to oscillation may be harmed by a generic 'start faster' instruction. A 2021 biomechanical study found differences between the first five meters and later sections of a twenty-meter course. This supports phase-specific observation rather than one universal cadence. Athletes can receive a goal for starting and later results about interruptions without introducing distracting sounds when the frame becomes unstable. Under loss of control, stopping safely is the correct response rather than an error to be overcome by shouting. Interpretation must consider load, surface, and frame geometry [9].

With tire flipping and sandbag carries, contact feedback must reflect material properties. Bags deform and contents can shift, so the same elbow configuration may not produce identical stability. A tire's mechanics change during rotation, and hand-repositioning timing may matter more than the final posture. Coaches can identify when contact became insecure and demonstrate the transition using a lighter implement instead of reproducing a hazardous failure at the same load. Describing an observable implement event may be easier to verify than vaguely demanding 'more core activation,' but no universal superiority has been established. A single slip does not demonstrate injury or muscular deficiency. Assessment begins with the actual implement, conditions, and observable sequence [7].

Self-correction, assessment, and experimental design

A realistic educational protocol can separate observation, decision, and verification. First, coach and athlete select a consequential variable, such as duration of the stone's lap transition. Second, the athlete describes what they perceived and chooses a testable correction, perhaps after reviewing video. Third, the movement is repeated at manageable load and the indicator recorded. Immediate improvement is a practice outcome, not automatic evidence of durable learning. A later check after rest, without identical prompts, can assess retention, and a moderately changed task can probe transfer. This is not a validated treatment or a universal feedback-frequency prescription. It simply makes hypotheses testable and reduces improvisation. Attempt numbers, load, and recovery should remain reasonably comparable between assessments. A change in completion time is hard to attribute to feedback when the athlete also lowered the weight or rested longer [1,3,6].

An athlete's independence can be evaluated by asking them to predict the outcome before seeing video. After a log clean, they might estimate whether the implement reached a stable rack and whether a meaningful pause occurred. The coach compares the prediction with observation. Better agreement over time may indicate improved self-assessment, provided the measured criterion is reliable rather than a vague coaching impression. We cannot conclude that 'the brain became more efficient' simply because movement is described more accurately. The athlete may have learned the evaluation vocabulary or become more familiar with the implement. Both can be useful but are distinct from actual performance change. When accurate self-assessment does not lead to better execution, a force limitation or inability to correct during action may remain. Feedback can support recognition of outcomes but does not substitute for mechanical adaptation and practice [1,2].

Error feedback should use neutral language. 'The stone lost stable contact during the lap phase' describes an observable event; 'you lack talent for this event' makes an unsupported general judgment from one failure. Athletes' emotional responses can influence willingness to attempt a correction, but the coach should not improvise psychological diagnoses. A useful message can describe what worked, which fact needs adjustment, and how the next attempt will be evaluated. Artificial praise is not required; precision and respect matter more than automatic optimism. Experienced competitors may prefer brief technical comments, while novices may need vocabulary explained. Asking the athlete to restate the intended change can verify understanding. No single tone is proven optimal for every person, but intelligible, testable information is logically necessary for meaningful correction [1,6].

Injury prevention is an area where feedback claims are easily exaggerated. A trunk-position cue may improve movement control, but it does not guarantee freedom from injury. Risk depends on loading, history, tissue capacity, fatigue, falling equipment, and other factors not captured by one recording. A posture that differs from an idealized image is not automatically hazardous. When new pain, instability, or repeated contact loss occurs, reducing difficulty or stopping is prudent. Continuing at the same mass merely to test whether verbal feedback can 'fix' the problem is inappropriate. Motor-learning studies typically examine accuracy, retention, or transfer rather than injury incidence in strongman. Claims of injury prevention would therefore exceed the evidence. Coaching technique and medical evaluation should be clearly separated when symptoms warrant assessment [4,7].

In research, feedback effects can be confused with increased attention or practice time. A group receiving individualized video may receive more coaching contact than a control group, so success cannot necessarily be attributed to the visual format. Learners choosing when to receive information may benefit from motivation rather than frequency alone. Less frequent feedback can alter rest duration, which matters in strength tasks. To isolate mechanisms, investigators should control attempt count, pause duration, load, and equipment experience. Meta-analyses combine heterogeneous experimental procedures, limiting confidence in universally optimal frequency claims. Because direct strongman interventions are scarce, highly precise numerical prescriptions should be treated as practical hypotheses rather than established facts. Rigor requires identifying other variables that changed and acknowledging uncertainty [3,6].

Research outcomes also require correct interpretation. When a meta-analysis finds no significant difference between feedback frequencies, it does not establish that methods are identical for every individual. It means the investigated average superiority was not demonstrated under the available evidence and uncertainty. When another meta-analysis reports retention benefits from athlete-requested feedback, that does not mean every requested comment is useful or that coaches are dispensable. Effects vary with skill, age, experience, and context, and standardized statistical effects cannot be converted into kilograms or seconds. A professional recommendation is conditional: offer information that clarifies the problem, permit self-assessment when safe, and check the outcome later. This avoids both excessive instruction and an idealization of withholding information [3,6].

Critical synthesis and decision principles for coaches

A documented session should link feedback to a goal defined before the attempt. If the main interest is the transition from floor to lap, that phase is recorded during comparable trials. If the objective becomes successful platform loading, the time spent in the initial phase may be secondary. Changing the criterion after every repetition makes progress uninterpretable because the athlete does not know what is being optimized. Different objectives can be addressed sequentially, but the log should keep them separate. One exceptional attempt does not establish a trend. With too few measurements, report only the individual observation. A coherent structure reduces confusion and allows athlete and coach to discuss outcomes without speculative claims about 'brain activation.' Documentation matters particularly when equipment or floor conditions change between sessions [1,2].

Expertise changes the meaning of feedback. A novice may struggle to recognize unstable contact and benefit from direct explanation; an experienced athlete may feel grip loss before it becomes visible on camera. Experience still does not guarantee perfect self-correction. With rare events or unfamiliar equipment, specialists may need demonstration or video as well. There is no mandatory stage when augmented feedback must disappear completely. The better question is whether additional information contributes something the athlete does not already know and helps choose the next action. Frequent feedback might temporarily be appropriate with a new implement, whereas redundant comments can be reduced as technique stabilizes. Frequency should reflect observable control of the actual task rather than merely years of training experience [1–3].

Sometimes the most useful response to a successful attempt is a question rather than a command. 'What changed compared with the previous repetition?' may reveal whether the athlete noticed a contact landmark. Inability to answer does not mean the movement was wrong or that learning was necessarily implicit. Adjustment may have occurred without a clear verbal account. Video may support comparison, but athletes need not produce detailed anatomical explanations for every success. Excessive verbal analysis may distract in some contexts and be necessary for persistent errors in others. The question should increase the utility of information rather than turn feedback into a vocabulary examination. Autonomy concerns choosing and recognizing relevant consequences even when the performer cannot describe the entire motor organization [2,6].

Feedback must fit the physical development objective. A block emphasizing maximal strength may contain different technical volume and fatigue than a session devoted to a new event. Variation in extremely demanding sets need not represent permanent skill deterioration. Sound interpretation records mass, preceding workload, rest, and recovery state. The last set of an exhausting session being slower than the first is not sufficient reason to redesign the athlete's technical strategy. Recovery and retesting at comparable loading may establish whether the problem persists. Feedback intended to improve immediate performance and feedback supporting long-term skill development serve different purposes. Conclusions should preserve that distinction. The next episode examines specifically how fatigue changes motor and cognitive resources [1,3].

An indicator is useful only when athletes understand its definition. 'Lap time decreased' matters when the phase boundaries are clear and faster execution preserved contact. 'Mean velocity increased' does not establish that the turn improved. Feedback can promote optimization of the wrong number if the metric replaces the actual task. Indicators therefore require context: equivalent load, equivalent course, and no hazardous loss of control. Multi-phase events cannot be evaluated through one number alone. Coaches should avoid turning their chosen metric into an absolute objective. The purpose is valid, repeatable task completion under reasonable safety conditions, and data are tools for understanding that outcome [1,7].

The scientific conclusion is that feedback cannot be reduced to 'more' or 'less.' Its content, measurement validity, timing, relation to process or outcome, and contribution to independent error recognition all matter. Recent syntheses challenge the universal superiority of reduced frequency while reporting conditional retention and transfer advantages from athlete-controlled feedback. Most underlying tasks differ from strongman, where information must also be weighed against mechanical hazards. Responsible practice preserves immediate safety interventions, selects relevant indicators, encourages independent assessment when appropriate, and later tests retention without continuous prompting. A good coach is not the one who talks most or least, but the one whose information helps the athlete become more capable, independent, and responsive to the real constraints of the event [1–6].

Scientific references

[1] Krakauer JW, Hadjiosif AM, Xu J, Wong AL, Haith AM. Motor Learning. Comprehensive Physiology. 2019;9:613–663. DOI: 10.1002/cphy.c170043. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30873583/

[2] Moinuddin A, Goel A, Sethi Y. The Role of Augmented Feedback on Motor Learning: A Systematic Review. Cureus. 2021;13(11):e19695. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.19695. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34976475/

[3] McKay B, Hussien J, Vinh M-A, Mir-Orefice A, Brooks H, Ste-Marie DM. Meta-analysis of the reduced relative feedback frequency effect on motor learning and performance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2022;61:102165. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102165. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1469029222000334

[4] Binks JA et al. The effects of combined action observation and motor imagery practice on motor learning: a systematic review. 2025. DOI: 10.1080/1750984X.2025.2575511. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2025.2575511

[5] Effect of Reduced Feedback Frequencies on Motor Learning in a Postural Control Task in Young Adults. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38474940/

[6] Wang B, Tao T, Yuan Y, Guo W. Self-Controlled Feedback and Behavioral Outcomes in Motor Skill Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Behavioral Sciences. 2025;15(9):1291. DOI: 10.3390/bs15091291. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41009321/

[7] Hindle BR, Lorimer A, Winwood P, Keogh JWL. The Biomechanics and Applications of Strongman Exercises: a Systematic Review. Sports Medicine Open. 2019;5:49. DOI: 10.1186/s40798-019-0222-z. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31820223/

[8] Dick TJM et al. Consensus for experimental design in electromyography project: Application of EMG to estimate muscle force. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2024;79:102910. DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2024.102910. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39069427/

[9] Hindle BR et al. The Biomechanical Characteristics of the Strongman Yoke Walk. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 2021;3:670297. DOI: 10.3389/fspor.2021.670297. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33981993/