A Qualitative Analysis of Athletes' Voluntary Image Speed Use

Transcription

1

2 DE GRUYTER doi / jirspa journal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity 2013; 8(1): 1-12 Jenny 0* and Craig R. Hall A Qualitative Analysis of Athletes' Voluntary Image Speed Use Abstract: The present study sought to describe the various reasons why athletes choose to manipulate the speeds of their images (i.e. image in slow motion, realtime, or fast motion). Athletes (N = 9) were interviewed using a one-on-one, semi-structured interview format. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and content analyzed for themes. Results suggested that the particular image speed selected by an athlete does often serve a specific purpose. Slow-motion images were primarily employed to enhance the learning, development, review, or refinement of skills and strategies. Real-time imagery was employed when athletes wanted to accurately represent movement tempo, relative timing, or absolute movement duration in their images. Fast motion images were used to enable strategy planning during competition, to increase or maintain confidence perceptions, to energize athletes, and to increase imagery session efficiency and focus. Furthermore, regarding the use of multiple image speeds, athletes emphasized the importance of avoiding exclusively imaging in fast- or in slow-motion, making note of the importance of real-time image speed use in ensuring accurate mental representations of temporal aspects of performance. The findings of the current study indicate that the timing guideline of the PETTLEP approach to motor imagery (Holmes & Collins, 2001) may require revision. The use of any given image speed may be a matter of personal preference rather than one of functional necessity. One exception, however, does appear to be images focused on learning some temporal aspect of performance. In these instances, real-time speed seems to be a necessary characteristic of one's image. Keywords: imagery, image speed, timing *Corresponding author: jenny 0, California State University- East Bay, Carlos Bee Blvd., Hayward, CA 94542, USA, jenny.o@csueastbay.edu Craig R. Hall, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 3K7, Cana, chall@uwo.ca The PETfLEP approach to motor imagery (Holmes & Collins, 2001) is an applied imagery model intended to guide imagery design. Research over the past decade has demonstrated that imagery interventions structured in a manner more consistent with the PETTLEP approach to motor imagery result in greater learning and/ or performance improvements when compared to more traditional imagery interventions (e.g. Wright & Smith, 2007, 2009). In a recent critical review and discussion on the PETTLEP model, Wakefield, Smith, Moran, and Holmes (2012) have suggested that imagery practitioners move away from viewing the PETTLEP model primarily as an extension of the functional equivalence hypothesis (Finke, 1980; Jeannerod, 1997), and instead, focus on the originally intended emphasis of the model: behavioral matching between imagery and physical performance. Wakefield et al. suggested that imagery practitioners should be primarily concerned with"... the individually identified functional equivalence of the imagery performance environments and behaviors when compared to the physical conditions" (p. 11; emphasis added), rather than the functional equivalence of the neural correlates of imagery as compared to actual physical performance. This would seem to indicate that the key to effective imagery is that the imagery experience should, as closely as possible, match the environmental structure and behavioral actions present during actual physical performance of the same activity intended for the same functional pmpose (e.g. practice intended to assist with learning or refinement of a new skill or strategy should contain similar structure between physical and imaginal practice sessions). In addition, and consistent with one of the theoretical frameworks employed by Holmes and Collins (2001) in their original PETTLEP model paper, Wakefield and colleagues (2012) emphasized the importance of individualized imagery experiences, couching their rationale in the context of Lang's (1979) bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. According to Lang, images contain stimulus, response, and meaning propositions. Stimulus propositions include one's image content (i.e. what is B

3 2 - jenny 0 and Craig R. Hall: Qualitative Analysis of Athletes' Voluntary Image Speed Use DE GRUYTER "happening", or, what is present in the image). Response propositions represent an individual's cognitive, physical, and/or physiological reactions to the stimulus propositions. Last, meaning propositions refer to the imager's subjective interpretation of the performance consequences experienced in the image (i.e. what the imaged events infer relative to the imager and/or the imager's performance). Due to the between-individual variability in the responses and subjective meanings of performance experiences, Lang hypothesized that to maximize imagery's effectiveness it is important to accurately represent stimulus propositions, but also, to highly personalize response and meaning propositions within an individual's imagery experience. Moreover, in achieving high congruency between the various Langian propositions during imagery and the equivalent cognitive processing features experienced during actual physical performance, behavior matching between imagery and physical practice (Wakefield et al.) is also betterachieved. One specific element of the PETILEP model (Holmes & Collins, 2001) is the "Timing element". Regarding the Timing element, Holmes and Collins have recommended that athletes image primarily in real-time speed, citing the need to accurately represent movement tempo, relative timing, and absolute movement duration in one's images. This argument relates to motor control issues, and specifically, to the importance of maintaining an accurate motor program for a motor action (Schmidt, 1975, 1985). However, Schmidt (1985) has noted that when first learning a motor action, a "mental blueprint" is created and stored as a generalized motor program. The program is recalled each time the motor action is performed. A generalized motor program is a program that defines a pattern of movement rather than a specific movement. This general structure of the motor program allows for "parameterization" such that the program can be apted to suit various outcome demands (e.g. Shapiro, Zernicke, Gregor, & Diestel, 19R1). For example, a change in arm displacement and speed (i.e. amplitude and velocity) can mean the difference between throwing a baseball 20 feet and throwing a baseball 200 feet. Although the set of motor commands used to initiate the short and long-distance throw is the same, the amplitude and velocity of the subsequent movements change, depending on the desired outcome (i.e. throw the ball 20 feet or throw the ball 200 feet). Of particular relevance to voluntary image speed manipulation is the parameter of movement time. Generalized motor program theory (Schmidt, 1985) holds that an individual is able to change the movement time of a particular movement (i.e. he or she can perform it faster or slower) while still maintaining the integrity of the generalized motor program. Since it is recommended that imagery be structured such that it is behaviorally equivalent to physical practice and performance (e.g. Holmes & Collins, 2001; Wakefield et al., 2012), it seems plausible that an athlete should be able to speed up or slow down his or her images without affecting the stored motor commands concerning movement tempo, relative timing, or absolute movement duration. During slow- or fast-motion imagery, if the athlete voluntarily employs an image speed, he or she is simply employing parameterization of movement time. Certainly, Holmes and Collins (2001) allude to this possibility within their PETTLEP model, hypothesizing that there are likely times where the use of slow motion or freeze frame images may be useful to a performer. In line with the notion of behavior matching between imagery and physical performance, it is not uncommon for individuals to physically slow down movements during practice of a skill or strategy (e.g. Fitts & Posner, 1967; Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2000), perhaps, in order to better-understand the required movement components, the movement sequence, or the spatial relationships between concurrent movement components of a particular skill or strategy. Accordingly, the decision to slow down execution of a skill or strategy during imagery practice may provide the same functional advantage for learning or refinement (i.e. behavior matching), thus assisting with the development or strengthening of the memory trace for that particular skill or strategy. This use of voluntary image speed manipulation would also be consistent with Holmes and Collins' (2001, 2002) suggestion that the various PETTLEP model elements are likely to interact with each other, and consequently, influence an imager's selection of particular image characteristic over others (e.g. due to a particular task and imagery functional goal, an imager may choose to employ slowmotion speed imagery instead of real-time speed). Moreover, with respect to Langian (1979) conceptions of imagery, the use of slow-motion image speed may serve to prolong the exposure to response and meaning propositions, thus improving the fidelity of these propositions for images used to assist with learning or development of skills or strategies. This specific use of slowmotion image speed may be particularly beneficial for skills or strategies that unfold relatively quickly (e.g. penalty kicks or saves in soccer, springboard dives, baseball swings, etc.). One may also consider Lang's theoretical framework when attempting to understand or explain athletes' use of fast-motion images. Though Holmes and Collins (2001) have noted that, from a B

4 DE GRUYTER jenny 0 and Craig R. Hall: Qualitative Analysis of Athletes' Voluntary Image Speed Use - 3 neurological perspective, there does not appear to be any benefits of employing images intentionally unfolding at a rate faster than real-time speed, from a Langian perspective, it is plausible that fast-motion speed may emphasize the response and meaning propositions of the image to the athlete. For example, a sprinter imaging themselves sprinting faster than he or she actually can in "real life" may intentionally employ that image for motivational purposes (e.g. MG-A, MG-M, or MS images). In order to strengthen the interpretation of the image as a motivation-inducing image, the sprinter may choose to experience the image in fast motion, in order to emphasize the power, speed, and dominance of competitors evident in the experience. This critical discussion of the timing element of the PETTLEP approach to motor imagery (Holmes & Collins, 2001) and its interaction with other PETTLEP elements (e. g. task, imagery function, environment, emotion) poses two interesting questions for researchers and imagery practitioners looking to maximize imagery's effectiveness: (1) Do athletes voluntarily manipulate the speed of their images, and if so, (2) Do the speeds chosen serve some functional purpose for the athletes? Anecdotally, the literature provides evidence that some athletes do voluntarily choose to manipulate the speed of their images, and that this manipulation serves some functional purpose. For example, Fournier, Deremaux, and Bernier (2008) interviewed two elite skydivers regarding their imagery use. In discussing his images, one skydiver commented: "... the routine we rehearsed mentally... is going to be a bit slower at the beginning. It's going to be slower than the real speed, to understand the sequence" (p. 740). This skydiver noted that he slows down the image of a dive sequence to allow him to better understand the sequence. The same skydiver also commented on his use of fast motion imagery: "... to get immersed in the move... my pictures come quickly, they're fast. It kind of pumps me up, you know, to end up ready for the jump" (p. 741). In this quotation, the skydiver commented that his use of fast-motion images serve an arousal regulation function (i.e. they "pump him up" for a jump). The fact that the skydiver described a functional purpose of both, his slow motion and fast motion imagery use, suggests that he consciously chose to image at each respective speed. Recently, 0 and Hall (2009) conducted a quantitative analysis to determine the salience of voluntary image speed use in the athlete population. Participants were 604 athletes currently participating in at least one sport, at any competitive level. The sample represented a broad range of sports (n = 52) at both recreational (n = 377) and competitive (n = 227) levels. Athletes were asked to complete the Image Speed Questionnaire, a measure designed by the authors to assess the relative frequency of voluntary slow motion, real-time, and fast motion imagery use for each function of imagery identified in the sport imagery literature (i.e. cognitive specific (CS), cognitive general (CG), motivation specific, motivation general - mastery, and motivation general - arousal; Hall, Mack, Paivio, & Hausenblas, 1998). Stage of learning (Fitts & Posner, 1967) was also considered for the two cognitive functions of imagery. 0 and Hall (2009) found athletes reported employing all three image speeds for each function of imagery. Furthermore, each speed was also reported for each stage of learning. Athletes reported employing slowmotion images most often when learning or developing a skill or strategy. Real-time images were consistently used most often by athletes regardless of imagery function or stage of learning, and fast-motion images were used most often when imaging skills or strategies that had been mastered. These results corroborate the anecdotal evidence demonstrating the existence of voluntary image speed manipulation, and more importantly, that the image speeds employed serve various functions (e.g. slow-motion imagery is used to assist in skill and strategy learning; Fournier et al., 2008). Currently, there may be an over-generalization of the Timing element of the PETTLEP approach to motor imagery (Holmes and Collins, 2001) in much of the research literature and in textbooks (e.g. Weinberg & Gould, 2003; Wright & Smith, 2007). For example, regarding the Timing element of the PETTLEP approach, Weinberg and Gould stated: "imagery appears to be most effective with the same timing as the actual event (e.g. it should take 30 seconds to image a 30-second pre-shot routine)" (p. 300). It appears that many practitioners have overlooked Holmes and Collins' suggestion that slow-motion image speed may be useful for certain imagery fun ctions. As noted by Morris, Spittle, and Watt (2005), research has yet to determine whether this assertion of the superiority of real-time imagery is accurate, and thus, statements such as that made by Weinberg and Gould may be somewhat misleading. From an applied perspective, it should not matter what speed an athlete voluntarily chooses to employ when engaging in imagery, provided the athlete finds that particular speed effective at improving his or her performance. Indeed, the literature has highlighted the importance of individualizing imagery programs for athletes (e.g. Holmes & Collins, 2001; Martin, Moritz, & Hall, 1999), and one such way to increase the individualized nature of an imagery program would be to allow an B

5 4 - Jenny 0 and Craig R. Hall: Qualitative Analysis of Athletes' Voluntary Image Speed Use DE GRUYTER athlete to select the speed(s) at which he or she wants to image. Certainly, research examining more- versus lessindividualized imagery interventions have shown significantly greater imagery effects of more-individualized imagery practice in both long- and short-term interventions (e.g. Smith et al., 2007; Wright & Smith, 2007). These interventions, however, have precluded the option for athletes to select their own image speed(s). Given the anecdotal reports of voluntary image speed manipulation by individual athletes (e.g. Fournier et al., 2008; Munroe, Giacobbi, Hall, & Weinberg, 2000; Munroe-Chandler, Hall, Fishburne, 0, & Hall, 2007), as well as the evidence of 0 and Hall (2009) who employed a large heterogeneous sample of athletes, it appears that further examination of athletes' use of voluntary image speed manipulations is warranted. Clearly, preliminary research is needed to describe the nature of voluntary image speed manipulation, and in particular, why athletes may be choosing to manipulate the speed of their images. If image speed manipulation is not perceived by athletes as serving some functional purpose, then encouraging athletes to image exclusively in real-time speed may, perhaps, be the most parsimonious image speed guideline to advocate (i.e. if using a particular speed does not enhance imagery use, there is no reason to use it). Alternately, finding perceived benefits of voluntary image speed manipulation could increase the degree of individualization possible in imagery program design; athletes could be given the choice of imaging at the speed(s) that they find most effective for a particular skill, movement component, strategy, or sport situation. Accordingly, the purpose of the present study was to conduct a qualitative analysis of competitive athletes' use of voluntary image speed manipulation. More specifically, the purpose was to describe why athletes are employing specific image speeds during imagery. A constructivist qualitative paradigm was employed in the present study because the goal of the qualitative analysis was to understand and, possibly, reconstruct the current conceptions regarding the speed at which athletes choose to image (cf. Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Competitive athletes were selected as the sample population because this athlete population is known to employ imagery to a greater degree than do recreational level athletes (e.g. Cumming & Hall, 2002). Consequently, competitive level athletes may be able to provide richer descriptions of their imagery use, which would allow for a clearer understanding of the various ways in which athletes may employ voluntary image speed manipulation in sport. Methods Participants Participants were nine competitive level athletes (Mage = 23.33, SD = 4.27) recruited from a Canadian university. The sample comprised four male and five female athletes from both team and individual sports. Team sports included: soccer, baseball, tennis (doubles), hockey, synchronized swimming, and volleyball. Individual sports included: Alpine skiing, swimming, tennis (singles), and trampoline. Four athletes competed at the varsity (i.e. university) level (soccer, tennis, hockey, and volleyball) and five at the national/international level (synchronized swimming, baseball, trampoline, alpine skiing, and swimming). The tennis player in the present study competed in both singles and doubles tennis at the varsity level. In qualitative paradigms, Patton (2002) has suggested that a sufficient sample is obtained when theoretical saturation is reached. In the present study, recruitment and interviewing of participants ceased when new themes were no longer emerging from the interview and ta analysis process (i.e. the ta were saturated). Materials Interview guide The semi-structured interviews followed a general interview guide (e.g. Patton, 2002). This approach involved the employment of a pre-determined set of questions which could be asked in any particular order. The flexibility in the guide was intended to increase the "flow" of the interview, such that it increased the comfort of the interviewee by approximating natural discourse. Athletes were asked to describe their voluntary use of slow motion, real-time, and fast motion images. Probe questions were employed to encourage elaboration of participants' responses. More specifically, the probes consisted of questions designed to encourage more detailed descriptions of why athletes voluntarily chose to image at a particular speed for a particular purpose. Pilot interviews were conducted with a male baseball player and a female soccer player to ensure the investigator's interview style and the interview guide were acceptable. Both pilot-interview athletes confirmed that interviewer style and the interview questions were appropriate.

6 DE GRUYTER Jenny 0 and Craig R. Hall: Qualitative Analysis of Athletes' Voluntary Image Speed Use - 5 Demographic information Athletes completed a demographic information questionnaire that assessed age, gender, primary sport, and highest competitive level. Procedure Following approval from the University ethics review board, athletes were recruited while on-campus at the University. Athletes who met the competitive level criteria were provided a letter of information and asked if they would be interested in participating in the study. For interested participants, interview times with the investigator were arranged via . Interviews took place oncampus, a setting that was familiar to the participants. Prior to beginning the interview, the investigator reviewed the general purpose of the interview and asked the athlete to provide his or her written consent to participation in the study. The semi-structured interview was conducted with only the lead investigator (i.e. the interviewer), a moderator, and the athlete present. Each interview followed the interview guide. The moderator did not participate during the interview, but did verbally review her interview notes with the athlete upon completion of the interview. This was done to ensure accurate interpretation of the relevant points made by the athlete during the interview; at this time, the athlete was encouraged to make any necessary changes or to provide clarification for any of his or her reviewed comments. Interviews were audiorecorded and were between 30 and 93 minutes in duration. At the conclusion of the interview, the athletes were asked to complete the demographic questionnaire. Approximately 1-2 week(s) after the initial interview, a verbatim transcript of the interview was sent to each athlete via . The athletes were asked to review the transcript to confirm that it accurately reflected their thoughts and feelings regarding voluntary image speed manipulation. Athletes were informed that they could make any necessary changes or additions to the transcript. All athlete-interview transcripts were returned to the lead investigator via without modification. Data analysis The interview transcripts were analyzed using content analysis (Patton, 2002). Both inductive and deductive methods were applied to group responses into categories and sub-categories. This mixed-methods approach to the qualitative ta analysis eliminated the imposition of philosophical qualitative constraints on the analysis (i.e. strictly inductive versus strictly deductive methods), thus creating the best opportunity to answer the research question of the present study (Johnson & Onwuegbuze, 2004): Why do athletes voluntarily manipulate the speed of their images to enhance imagery practice? Each piece of text containing one idea or concept that could be independently interpreted was coded as a meaning unit using the NVivo 8 software program (QSR International, 2008). These meaning units were then grouped into sub-categories (e.g. "Cognitive Specitlc"). The sub-categories were then grouped into higher-order categories (e.g. "Slow motion"). To ensure trustworthiness of the ta analysis (e.g. Patton, 2002), coding was independently undertaken by two researchers. Both researchers coded each verbatim transcript to identify categories and sub categories in the ta. Upon completion of the independent coding process, the two sets of coded transcripts were compared regarding the agreement between the assigned categories and subcategories. The two researchers similarly coded 313 of the 360 meaning units (i.e. 87o/o agreement). When discrepancies arose, the meaning units were re-examined and discussed until a consensus was reached between the two researchers. Results A summary of the results of the current study are presented in Figure 1. The figure consists of a hierarchical tree summarizing the "why" of athletes' voluntary image speed manipulation, for slow motion, real-time, and fast motion image speeds. Frequency ta were calculated (and displayed in parentheses) to illustrate how often each category and sub-category was discussed by the athletes. For example, all nine athletes commented on the using slow motion imagery for CS purposes, and 75 meaning units were identified. In Figure 1, this is displayed as "(9, 75)". While this information is provided to the reader, it is important to note frequency ta does not necessarily indicate the relative importance of each subcategory or category (e.g. Munroe et al., 2000). As results of the present qualitative analysis do not infer any causal relationships between voluntary image speed manipulation and performance, frequency ta are only intended to serve a descriptive function. B

7 6 - jenny 0 and Craig R. Hall: Qualitative Analysis of Athletes' Voluntary Image Speed Use DE GRUYTER Figure 1 Hierarchical trees for the "why" of athletes' voluntary image speed use. The "why" of athletes' images refers to the various functions images can serve. The function of a particular image is dependent on the specific imagery goal(s) of the imager, and cannot be discerned simply by analyzing image content (e.g. Hall, 2001). For example, visual image content of one successfully shooting a three-point shot in basketball does not necessarily mean that the imager is employing CS imagery; he or she could be employing any of the five imagery functions. In addition, the imagery functions are orthogonal, and thus, one single image could serve multiple functions for an athlete (Martin et al., 1999). Cognitive specific (CS) CS images refer to images that are employed to assist in skill learning, development, or correction (e.g. Munroe et al., 2000). None of the athletes described employing fast motion images for the CS function of imagery. Some of the athletes reported that slow motion images often helped them when learning a new skill. For example, the gymnast described how slow motion allowed her to gain a better understanding of a complex somersault: [When the skill) was kind of new... you have to think about, like, "where's your head" and "how tight is your tuck" and "where exactly do you kick out" and that sort of stuff. [Slow motion speed was) a lot more helpful... when I had to think about all these different things at the same time. All of the athletes described using slow-motion imagery to review and "fine tune" learned skills outside of competition. In these representative quotations, athletes emphasized the utility of slow motion in identifying and mentally practicing extremely small movement details that would help improve performance. In explaining why she thought slow-motion imagery enhanced her review of a race start, the swimmer commented: "you're kind of getting more detail of every little tiny portion of every movement - even if you're really elite - for the very important parts of the race... like, [for example] reaction time at the start of the race". Athletes often reported that real-time images enhanced the ability to get an accurate kinesthetic representation of what a skill would feel like if performed perfectly. For example, the swimmer noted: Actually going through the motions of that stroke, so, like kinesthetically how it feels, so, like pulling - my arms doing... an "S" shape and pushing out fast with my hands... flicking my fingers at the end of the stroke... [real-time speed] helped more with the feeling of it... feeling the technique. B

8 DE GRUYTER Jenny 0 and Craig R. Hall: Qualitative Analysis of Athletes' Voluntary Image Speed Use - 7 Athletes also suggested that real-time imagery allowed them to visually and immediately review flawed performances while in competition to identify corrections that needed to be made: "you can use real-time [speed] right away to sort of picture that in your head and you can be, like, 'oh, ok, I took off eight inches, maybe a foot ahead of where I should've taken off" (volleyball player). Cognitive general (CG) CG images assist in the learning, planning, or execution of strategies. routines. or game plans (e.g. Hall et al., 1998). Slow-motion imagery was reported to enhance the ability to plan effective strategies. Athletes specifically commented on the usefulness of slow-motion imagery in analyzing as many environmental details as possible, to best-construct a plan of action. For example, the soccer player noted: You can see everything that you have to do for the ball to go in: where you're kicking it on the ball, where the goalie is in relation to you, what part of the neck is the most available to put that ball in, that's why I visualize that in slow motion, because it allows me to take in everything that I could before I actually release the shot. Some athletes also felt that slow-motion imagery allowed them to refine specific movements during the mental review of a planned strategy. In describing a real-time image of his planned approach to an alpine ski course, the alpine skier commented that he would switch to slow motion when parts of the image did not unfold exactly as he wanted: There's always times where you do something that you don't like in your head, [for example] that you want to start a tum at a specific point, and as you're visualizing it doesn't happen the first time... you're always going to go back [in your image]. slow it down, and make sure that it gets corrected inside your head. Athletes generally noted that real-time images helped them to ensure the movement tempo of a strategy (e.g. "it definitely helped to make sure that you remembered the routine properly and to remember the counts"; synchronized swimmer). In addition, athletes specifically noted that real-time images immediately before, or during competition helped them understand the actual speed at which they needed to make decisions when executing strategies. Athletes identified "if- then" situations where their chosen movement response would be based on the movements of others or on how effectively a planned strategy was unfolding while in execution (i.e. contingency planning). For example, in describing his use of real-time imagery to anticipate the movement of his teammate during a match, the soccer player commented: So say one of the midfielders on the opposite side has the ball, I would have to... [anticipate] he's going to get through all those players - he's going to make the cross - so, by him doing that I image myself compensating by being in the right place in the right time so he can make that cross, so when it actually happens, that's what I'm doing. The gymnast described her use of real-time imagery to help her practice the execution of a contingency plan for an unfolding strategy: If you imagine stuff in real-time... You can plan a kind of a back up routine... like, you might say, like: "okay, if it's going really well, just pull out... make the last trick the really hard one, if it's not going so great, just finish with something different". So when - if you have to decide, like, when you're half way through a double somersault [in actual perfor mance] you think "okay, so next I'm gonna [sic] do this, this, and this". Athletes also noted that fast-motion imagery was employed to facilitate strategy planning, but only while in competition. For example, the tennis player discussed why fast-motion imagery was useful during her singles tennis matches: "I'm able to visualize, like, where I need to be in a bit, it helps me with strategy for sure. I can figure out what I need to do throughout the point and I can keep changing my plan". Motivation specific (MS) The use of imagery for MS functions (e.g. using imagery to increase one's motivation by imaging oneself being congratulated for a successful performance) was only mentioned by one athlete (the baseball player). In addition, it was unclear exactly how the use of slow-motion imagery (over other speeds) enhanced the MS function of the image described: "25 or 30o/o of my imagery is slow [motion]. And it's for like, just seeing myself smoke the ball over the fence or make like a crazy-good catch or something". Motivation general-mastery (MG-M) MG-M images are employed to increase confidence, focus, or mental toughness (e.g. Munroe et al., 2000).

9 8 - Jenny 0 and Craig R. Hall: Qualitative Analysis of Athletes' Voluntary Image Speed Use DE GRUYTER Several athletes felt that the use of slow motion enhanced the confidence-building effects of MG-M imagery when preparing for an upcoming performance. For example, the alpine skier commented: You're going to spend a lot of time really, really slow in your mind through that section [a difficult section) to make sure it's perfect... that goes back to, like, confidence, like, how confident a re you in that part of the course before you ever skied it, and the less confident you are, the slower you're gonna [sic) play it in your head. Athletes also noted that by slowing images down, they could improve their focus in preparation for a performance (e.g. "it's just a little bit of mental preparation to [help] focus, by slowing it down a bit"; swimmer). When athletes discussed their use of real-time speed in MG-M images, they failed to identify why they thought real-time imagery (instead of other speeds) was particularly useful in the various situations described. Athletes did, however, indicate that they employed real-time for images related to confidence (e.g. "if you remember [image] things perfectly and you do it perfectly, you become more confident"; synchronized swimmer), focus (e.g. "I just think it just helps keep everything focused"; tennis player), and mental toughness (e.g. "you think about all those other times [you performed well] and you're like: 'I know I have the ability to do it, I'm just mentally screwing this up, it's not a physical thing'"; volleyball player). Fast-motion image speed during MG-M imagery was almost explicitly used to enhance confidence. In explaining why fast motion helped her feel more confident when imaging herself sprinting toward a vault, the gymnast noted: "having that real feeling of confidence, like, feeling like you're running fast... it feels really good, like, it's the best... way you could start that event - is by getting a good run-up." The a lpine skier also commented that he sometimes would employ fas t-motion imagery to maintain his confidence levels when he was having trouble imaging a particularly difficult section of a course: If you constantly screw up in your head then you're - you get to the point where it's like five minutes later you're like: "okay, I've gone through five turns a nd I'm spending a minute on each one screwing up", so it's just, like, "alright, screw this, there's no way this is helping me in any way other than to make me less confident". So then you start planning through faster and faster and faster and you let mistakes slide by and that's just advantageous in the fact that it doesn't - doesn't continue destroying your confidence. Motivation general-arousal (MG-A) MG-A images are employed to regulate arousal levels (e.g. Hall et al., 1998). Athletes felt that the slow-motion speed enhanced the calming effects of MG-A images. Furthermore, all of the calming images described involved sport situations that unfolded extremely rapidly, where athletes had little time to react. For example, in describing images of herself successfully returning shots from a hard- hitting opponent, the tennis player noted: "usually I use it [slow motion imagery] after I mess up a point, or... between points... because it makes me feel better, like: 'these balls aren't canons coming at me', so I'll slow it down, and it kind of has a calming effect on me." When describing MG-A images used to calm themselves down or to energize themselves (i.e. to "psych up'), athletes often failed to explain why real-time speed was specifically chosen. However, the gymnast did note of her specific choice of real-time when employing MG-A imagery: "I think it makes it realistic as I see it, urn, because I found, like, it was one really good way to ease my nerves - was to imagine exactly how the whole thing was going to unfold." A few athletes felt that fast-motion images enhanced the energizing effects of MG-A imagery. For example, when asked why he sometimes chose to image a big hit (i.e. a volleyball spike) in fast motion, the volleyball player simply stated: "just to get yourself pumped up. It makes you feel more powerful." The gymnast also explained that fast motion enhanced her MG-A images of her run up: "I really believe that there's a lot of connection between the mind and the body so, like, you have to be really pumped up to do it [to get a good run up to a vault]. Imaging fast [in fast motion] makes you want to run super fast." Image efficiency Specifically regarding the use of fast-motion images, a new theme emerged from the interview ta. A few athletes commented on their use of fast motion in CG images to "fast forward" through parts of images which included movements that they were confident they could perform. Athletes conveyed that there was no point in imaging these parts, so they simply sped through them in their images. For example, the alpine skier explained: You have to choose which parts [of the ski course) to remember... if tum, like, 1 through 10 doesn't change from tum-to-turn, then

10 DE GRUYTER Jenny 0 and Craig R. Hall: Qualitative Analysis of Athletes' Voluntary Image Speed Use - 9 that's not something you really focus on so if you're visualizing... you'll just, like, play them [turns 1 through 10] really quick and you'll just do very un-detailed, like, generic images in your head of somebody just whipping around those 10 turns. Similarly, in describing her use of imagery to mentally practice a race, the swimmer explained that employing fast motion allowed her to image her race more efficiently: "I definitely would see like part of the actual race, like just doing the freestyle... I'd speed that up [use fast motion] because I knew that part." The swimmer added that she used fast motion imagery to help her maintain her focus during imagery practice (by reducing the time it took to image): "I know when I was doing longer races - like the 100 m back or something - that was a long time to like, stay focused [during imagery] so I used fast motion imagery to help me - to help me stay focused on the imagery." Behavioral matching A final theme that emerged from inductive analysis of the interview ta concerned athletes' explanations for employing certain speeds. For real-time images, athletes noted the importance of replicating actual performance (e.g. "real-time [speed] - it's beneficial because that's the actual speed [at which] you're playing the game"; soccer player). Similarly, the gymnast explained: "I wanted to make the image as close to reality as possible, so that's why I wanted to keep it in real-time." Athletes also noted that it was important to always include real-time speed in all imagery practice. For example, the synchronized swimmer noted: "If you always image too slow you're going to do it too slow, and if you always image too fast you're going to swim too fast." Other athletes suggested that it was important to conclude imagery practice in real-time when imagine entire sport skills (e.g. an entire baseball swing) to ensure proper movement speed: "I've always just done real-time at the end... so that I don't mess myself up by swinging too slowly. Slow motion is good to, like, zoom in on parts of the swing, but you need the real-time to get the timing back." (baseball player) Regarding why they chose to use slow-motion images, athletes also noted similarities between their imagery practice and physical practice (i.e. behavioral matching; Wakefield et al., 2012). A representative quotation was made by the hockey player: So when I was learning that [a specific goaltender skill] they [the coaches] would tell you - they would go through it slow, like: "this is how you have to move your leg." So I'd see myself [when imaging in slow motion] - I'd start, like, small kind of details, like, I should be moving this leg at this time a nd it, like, it should look like this, and it should be doing this, and everything should be here. Finally, a few athletes also commented on how their image speed use was influenced by their use of video analysis to evaluate and improve their performances (i.e. behavioral matching; Wakefield et al., 2012). For example, the alpine skier explained: So... you'd be watching a video [replay of yourself] a nd you'd have to turn the turn knob [to speed up and slow down the video]... then when you look at it [the use of different replay speeds in video ana lysis]. and you're like: "Oh my God, this is perfect! I can get rid of the stuff that's not needed [in my image] and get really concentrated on actually watching myself ski." Discussion The present study examined athletes' use of voluntary image speed manipulation. More specifically, it sought to describe the various reasons why athletes choose to manipulate the speeds of their images. Results confirmed that competitive level athletes do voluntarily select specific speeds at which to image (0 & Hall, 2009), and that the image speeds selected serve specific purposes. Slowmotion images were primarily employed to enhance the learning, development, or review of skills and strategies. They also assisted athletes with arousal regulation, confidence perceptions, and focus. Real-time imagery was employed when athletes wanted to accurately represent movement tempo, relative timing, or absolute movement duration in their images. Fast-motion images were used to enable strategy planning during competition, to increase or maintain confidence perceptions, to energize athletes, and to increase imagery session efficiency and focus. Furthermore, regarding the use of multiple image speeds, athletes emphasized the importance of avoiding exclusively imaging in fast- or in slow-motion, making note of the importance of real-time image speed use in ensuring accurate mental representations of temporal aspects of performance. Taken collectively, these findings provide support for the Timing element and its interaction with other elements of the PETTLEP approach to motor imagery (Holmes & Collins, 2001), and suggest that further examination into athletes' voluntary image speed manipulation is warranted. As suggested by several researchers (e.g. Andre & Means, 1986; 0 & Munroe-Chandler, 2008), athletes B

11

12

13