Why a Para Athlete’s Brain Starts Looking for the Next Error After Just One Mistake

In para sport, one error can change the next attempt very quickly because the athlete starts searching for its cause not only in the technique, but also in the body. An unexpected flyer, a disrupted release, or an inaccurate movement immediately raises questions. Has the spasticity increased? Has fatigue set in? Has the support position changed? Has pain appeared? Has sensation decreased? Is the arm working less effectively? Sometimes the cause genuinely lies there. Physical condition can change during a single performance, and these changes cannot be ignored. But after the first error, the brain starts searching for signs that the problem will repeat before the athlete’s condition has actually changed.

Research on error processing shows that after an unexpected result, the brain increases its monitoring of information that may explain the error and help prevent it from happening again. In para sport, there are more possible sources of this information. The athlete monitors not only the target, rhythm, and movement, but also the physical condition that genuinely affects performance. As a result, a normal functional sensation may suddenly take on a different meaning after an error. A small increase in muscle tone is interpreted as the beginning of spasticity. Fatigue in the arm becomes a sign that maintaining the position will soon be impossible. A change in pressure against the support feels like evidence that stability is being lost. Attention stops supporting the action and begins checking the body for the next problem.

This quickly changes the movement itself. An adapted motor skill is built through automaticity in the same way as any other complex sporting skill. Through thousands of repetitions, the athlete finds a way of maintaining position, distributing effort, using support, and executing the release, stroke, or shot that is available to their body. After an error, trust in this movement can decrease sharply. In para shooting, the athlete starts monitoring sight stability, the trigger finger, trunk position, pressure against the support, muscle tone, and breathing at the same time. The archer checks the seated position, shoulder, draw, and release. In para golf, attention shifts towards balance and the available range of movement. In darts, the athlete starts consciously controlling the wrist and fingers.

The more parameters the athlete tries to control consciously, the greater the demand on working memory and the less automatic the movement becomes. Rhythm changes, muscles may engage too early, unnecessary effort appears, and the action becomes more cautious. This is why the first and second errors may have completely different causes. The first flyer may genuinely have resulted from a brief increase in spasticity. The second appears because the athlete expects it to happen again, stabilises the body more rigidly, changes their breathing, and tries to control every part of the shot. The first stroke may have changed because of fatigue. The next changes because the athlete starts protecting the movement excessively.

What was a genuine physical cause of the first error becomes an expectation that influences the second.

This creates a difficult task for the coach. The coach needs to distinguish between a real change in the athlete’s condition and the athlete’s reaction to that change. If spasticity is present, it is easy to use it to explain every flyer. If the athlete lives with chronic pain, any technical instability can be attributed to pain. If arm strength is reduced, it is natural to conclude after several errors that fatigue has set in. Sometimes this explanation will be accurate, but not always.

If every error is automatically connected to the athlete’s physical characteristics, the athlete gradually starts doing the same thing. They check their condition more frequently, trust the movement less, and interpret every sensation as the beginning of a problem. A narrow boundary develops between necessary monitoring and excessive control. The coach cannot tell the athlete to ignore the body because pain, spasticity, fatigue, sensation, and changes in support are real. At the same time, constant body scanning also begins to interfere with performance.

After an error, the coach therefore needs to observe not only what happened in the body, but also what the athlete started doing afterwards. Did the rhythm change? Did more checks appear? Did the athlete start searching for a position for longer? Did unnecessary effort appear? Did the athlete start protecting the movement or, in contrast, trying to force the body to maintain the previous technique?

The cause of the next error can often be found there.

There is another trap that coaches need to recognise. A para athlete may know their body well and correctly identify changes, but this does not mean that every sensation accurately predicts the result of the next attempt. Pain may remain while the movement stays precise. Spasticity may be present, but the athlete may know how to perform under those conditions. Fatigue may require adaptation, but it does not necessarily destroy the skill.

If one poor result causes the athlete to interpret their physical condition as evidence that nothing will work from that point onwards, the physical limitation and the expectation of another error begin to reinforce each other. The coach’s task is therefore neither to ignore the body nor to use the body to explain everything. The coach needs to recognise where the athlete’s ability to perform has genuinely changed and requires adaptation, and where the athlete has already started protecting themselves against the next error in a way that changes the movement.

This is what I work on individually with coaches and coach-athlete pairs. We examine how physical condition, attention, and automated skill interact after an error, how to distinguish necessary adaptation from excessive control, and why the second error does not always result from the same limitation that caused the first. Very often, the second error is no longer created by the limitation itself. It is created by the athlete’s attempt to prevent that limitation from affecting the performance again at any cost.