It has been acknowledged that warm-up has a positive effect on athletes’ performance as well as their overall physical state. Although it is sometimes assumed that warm-up may lead to a decrease in muscle power or strength, Sim, Byun, and Yoo (2015) found that there was no such a link and warm-up enhanced athlete’s performance. However, it is important to ensure the implementation of effective warm-up and post-warm-up strategies as the interval between the warm-up and the activity cannot be too long (Silva, Neiva, Marques, Izquierdo, & Marinho, 2018). Altavilla, Di Tore, and D’Isanto (2018) also emphasize the importance of the interval between the warm-up and further activity stating that this period should not be longer than five minutes. In order to maintain muscle temperature after the warm-up, the utilization of warming garments is essential.
Recent research on the outcomes of warm-up suggests that both active and passive warm-up contributes to optimal performance due to its psychological and neural effects, metabolic impact, and temperature increasing effect (McGowan, Pyne, Thompson, & Rattray, 2015). Researchers also identify the third type of warm-up, which is combined. This type of warm-up includes passive and active warm-up activities and has a positive influence on the physical and mental state of the athlete (Gogte, Srivastav, & Miyaru, 2017). It is also found that certain warm-up exercises can have adverse effects on the athlete’s further performance (Walsh, 2017). For example, stretching should be performed dynamically in order to achieve the highest potential. It is possible to conclude that warm-up is an important part of physical activity that intensifies the work of muscles and enables athletes to achieve the most prominent results during the game or competition.
References
Altavilla, G., Di Tore, A., & D’Isanto, T. (2018). Physiological effects of warm-up and problems related to team sports. Sport Science, 11(1), 83-88.
Gogte, K., Srivastav, P., & Miyaru, G. B. (2017). Effect of passive, active and combined warm up on lower limb muscle performance and dynamic stability in recreational sports players. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 11(3), 5-8.
McGowan, C. J., Pyne, D. B., Thompson, K. G., & Rattray, B. (2015). Warm-up strategies for sport and exercise: Mechanisms and applications. Sports Medicine, 45(11), 1523-1546.
Silva, L. M., Neiva, H. P., Marques, M. C., Izquierdo, M., & Marinho, D. A. (2018). Effects of warm-up, post-warm-up, and re-warm-up strategies on explosive efforts in team sports: A systematic review. Sports Medicine, 48(10), 2285-2299.
Sim, Y. J., Byun, Y. H., & Yoo, J. (2015). Comparison of isokinetic muscle strength and muscle power by types of warm-up. Journal of Physical Therapy Science, 27(5), 1491-1494.
Walsh, G. S. (2017). Effect of static and dynamic muscle stretching as part of warm up procedures on knee joint proprioception and strength. Human Movement Science, 55, 189-195.
Broadbent Filter Theory
Broadbent filter theory was the first comprehensive theoretical framework regarding attention and associated processes. The model was based on the analysis of a number of studies on selective hearing implemented in the first part of the twentieth century. Broadbent (1958) developed the filter theory that stemmed from his interest in the communication of pilots and radar operators during the Second World War. Operators had to communicate with several pilots at a time and react to diverse situations. The major Broadbent’s contribution was the use of information processing concepts from computer science and mathematics to explain psychological phenomena (Driver, 2001). The researcher found central processing parameters of computers similar to attentional parameters of humans’ information processing. Broadbent developed a clear and comprehensive flow-diagram describing his concepts, and the model became widely used in cognitive psychology and neuropsychology.
Broadbent (1958) suggested that two stages of perceptual processing were associated with selective shadowing. The first stage relates to the processing of physical features, such as pitch and voice location, and their removal from the incoming stimuli. The second stage is characterized by the subtraction of psychological components, such as word meaning. Second-stage processing is safeguarded from the overload by the selective filter that lets certain physical features go through. Selective attention can be optimal when the involved physical traits of the parallel stimuli are clear.
Researchers tried to analyze people’s processing of unattended messages using diverse methods. For instance, people were asked surprise questions about non-shadowed messages after their processing of shadowed data. The measurement was seen as ineffective as people could have forgotten some information rather than not paying attention to it (Driver, 2001). Such findings and assumptions encouraged researchers to explore the peculiarities of attention, which had been seen as a single channel of perception.
For example, Gary and Wedderburn (1960) utilized another method and provided syllables or short phrases to the participants’ each ear simultaneously. Although the middle of the message was presented to the unattended ear, the participants could recall it properly. In another study, the participants’ names were encoded in unattended messages, and only one-third of them noticed their names (Moray, 1959). The results of controversial studies also suggest that people are able to process unattended messages. One of such studies involved the use of electric shock (Corteen & Dunn, 1974). An electric device attached to the participants’ finger was on whenever they heard some words. When the participants heard the words in unattended messages, they reported that they felt electric shocks although the device was not working.
In the study implemented by Lewis (1970), it was found that message shadowing was influenced by the provision of data containing the words with similar concepts or meanings in non-shadowed messages. The interpretation of the shadowed message was affected by the non-shadowed data. Hence, a wealth of evidence regarding the filtering process was available, so a theory explaining unattended stimuli processing was needed. One of Broadbent’s students, Treisman (1960), applied a modified version of her teacher’s theory to explain unattended messages processing. Treisman (1960) suggested that data was subjected to the attenuation process rather than complete blockage or rejection during the filtering process. According to this framework, attended and unattended messages passed through the second stage, and the unattended stimuli were weaker than attended ones. Nevertheless, when the unattended messages are simple and have a sufficient amount of meaning, they are processed properly. The illustrations of this phenomenon are Moray’s (1959) study with participants’ names or the study by Corteen and Dunn (1974) that involved electric shock that made the stimuli receive an emotional component.
The background for the attenuation theory was set in 1960 with the study implemented by Treisman. The participants received two messages in each ear, and one of the messages was shadowed. The researcher switched one of the keywords in each message, so one word did not fit. The participants were able to replicate the correct message although the necessary word that fitted the context was shadowed. Underwood (1977) used a similar method, but the participants received complete sentences in each ear, and it was concluded that the sentences were perceived as semantic frames only in attended messages.
Different Types of Selection
Treisman’s theory was questioned as there was no understanding regarding the way decisions about exact components to be attenuated were made by the filtering system. It was unclear whether the stimuli were attenuated or whether they were filtered during another phase of the selection process. Deutsch and Deutsch (1963) addressed the question and suggested that people’s awareness of the unattended messages is limited due to its rejection from entering into memory or controlled responses. The researchers stated that the data was processed fully but remained out of individuals’ control due to this kind of rejection. In simple terms, people process both attended and unattended stimuli but do not form memories or cannot respond to the message. Norman (1969) stated that unattended messages reach short-term memory but do not get through to long-term memory.
The research regarding the process of filtering was expanded by Keele (1973), who suggested his own model. In terms of this framework, both attended and unattended messages are processed with no attention paid to the messages during the identification and response selection stages. At the early preparation phases, information or some of its components associated with the stimuli are prepared for sudden reactions or planned processing. These preparations start at later stages of the selection of the most appropriate responses.
Multi-Channel Hypothesis
As seen from the review of the research on attention implemented in the middle of the twentieth century, single-channel theory was largely supported. Although various findings and interpretations pointed at certain peculiarities of the selection process, it was agreed that humans concentrated on one stimulus at a time. It was also believed that people could process attended and unattended stimuli, but they would not remember the latter ones.
However, Allport, Antonis, and Reynolds (1972) proved that attention was multi-channel. In the research, Allport et al. (1972) provided different types of stimuli to the participants. The fact that the researchers used visual and auditory messages was the major difference between their study and the ones implemented earlier. It was found that the participants could remember visual messages in detail although the processing system was shadowing auditory stimuli at that period. During another experiment, the participants were asked to play the piano and simultaneously shadow a message. These experiments show that people can process different stimuli, so the single-channel theory could not be applied universally. Allport et al. (1972) stressed that the single-channel theory could be relevant in some cases. The brain operates in a single- or multiple-channel manner depending on the level of concentration and the tasks to be performed.