Visual Imagery can be either internal or external (Shambrook and Bull, 2004) which is backed by Selk (2009). External Imagery is viewing yourself from outside of your body, much like seeing yourself on TV (Mahoney and Avener, 1977 in Callow and Hardy, 2004). This is backed by Selk (2009) and Shambrook and Bull (2004). Internal imagery on the other hand is like seeing the scene you are imagining through your own eyes as you are competing (Mahoney and Avener, 1977 in Callow and Hardy, 2004). This is again backed by Selk (2009) and Shambrook and Bull (2004). Many other experts have accepted these definitions of internal and external imagery and incorporated them into their work. An example of this is the work of Guillot, Collet, Nguyen, Malouin,
…show more content…
Overall it appears though that internal imagery is the more effective tool for most sports performers. This is due to the imagery being from inside your own head which leads to the use of other senses so the visualisation becomes imagery (Selk, 2009). This is backed up by Soccer: The mind game (Bull and Shambrook, 2004) which agrees that internal imagery brings in the other senses and specifically mentions kinaesthetic imagery. This is further backed by the book ‘Imagery in Sports and Physical performance’ (Sheik, 1994) which corroborates the views stated by Selk, and Shambrook and Bull. This shows that there is some agreement in the merits of internal imagery over external imagery. Sheik (1994) goes onto say that internal imagery in conjunction with kinaesthetic imagery is more effective than external imagery, especially for elite athletes, and draws on the example of gymnasts that qualified for the Olympics mainly used internal imagery while those that didn’t qualify mainly used external imagery. A further study on elite skiers produced similar results (Rotella, Gansneder, Ojala and Billing (1980) in Salmon, Hall and Heslam, …show more content…
The effectiveness of external imagery is also defended by the fact it helps with the tactics as well as helping to observe performance objectively (Bull and Shambrook, 2004). There is no mention though of any added benefits of external visual imagery by ’10 minute toughness’ (Selk, 2009) suggesting that there is not as much benefit from doing the external imagery as there is from doing internal imagery. However, this is challenged by Epstein in Sheik (1994) who says that there is no clear difference in external and internal imageries benefits and it depends on the person carrying out the imagery task. This is supported within Sheik (1994) by Hale, and Harris and Robinson who all agree that the further research is required before a decision is reached. Furthermore, Mumford and Hall (1985, within Salmon, Hall and Heslam, 1994) agree that there is no superiority between internal or external imagery after testing both types on speed
Overall it appears though that internal imagery is the more effective tool for most sports performers. This is due to the imagery being from inside your own head which leads to the use of other senses so the visualisation becomes imagery (Selk, 2009). This is backed up by Soccer: The mind game (Bull and Shambrook, 2004) which agrees that internal imagery brings in the other senses and specifically mentions kinaesthetic imagery. This is further backed by the book ‘Imagery in Sports and Physical performance’ (Sheik, 1994) which corroborates the views stated by Selk, and Shambrook and Bull. This shows that there is some agreement in the merits of internal imagery over external imagery. Sheik (1994) goes onto say that internal imagery in conjunction with kinaesthetic imagery is more effective than external imagery, especially for elite athletes, and draws on the example of gymnasts that qualified for the Olympics mainly used internal imagery while those that didn’t qualify mainly used external imagery. A further study on elite skiers produced similar results (Rotella, Gansneder, Ojala and Billing (1980) in Salmon, Hall and Heslam, …show more content…
The effectiveness of external imagery is also defended by the fact it helps with the tactics as well as helping to observe performance objectively (Bull and Shambrook, 2004). There is no mention though of any added benefits of external visual imagery by ’10 minute toughness’ (Selk, 2009) suggesting that there is not as much benefit from doing the external imagery as there is from doing internal imagery. However, this is challenged by Epstein in Sheik (1994) who says that there is no clear difference in external and internal imageries benefits and it depends on the person carrying out the imagery task. This is supported within Sheik (1994) by Hale, and Harris and Robinson who all agree that the further research is required before a decision is reached. Furthermore, Mumford and Hall (1985, within Salmon, Hall and Heslam, 1994) agree that there is no superiority between internal or external imagery after testing both types on speed