67

Efficacy of pre-ascent climbing route visual inspectionin indoor sport climbing

X. Sanchez1, Ph. Lambert2,3, G. Jones4, D. J. Llewellyn5

1Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands,2Institut des sciences humaines et sociales, Universite de Liege, Liege, Belgium, 3Institut de statistique, biostatistique et sciencesactuarielles, Universite catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 4Faculty of Health, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds,UK, 5Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UKCorresponding author: Xavier Sanchez, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Universityof Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands. Tel: 131 50 363 6386, Fax: 131 50 363 4581,E-mail: x.sanchez@rug.nl

Accepted for publication 28 April 2010

Pre-ascent climbing route visual inspection (route preview)has been suggested as a key climbing performance para-meter although its role has never been verified experimen-tally. We examined the efficacy of this perceptual-cognitiveskill on indoor sport climbing performance. Twenty-ninemale climbers, divided into intermediate, advanced andexpert climbing level groups, climbed two indoor sportroutes matching their climbing level and, where applicable,routes below their climbing level. At each level, one routewas climbed with a preview, where participants benefitedfrom a 3-min pre-ascent climbing route visual inspection.Performance was assessed in terms of output (route comple-tion) and form (number and duration of moves and stops).

Route preview did not influence the output performance.Climbers using visual inspection were no more likely tofinish the ascent than those without the option of using visualinspection. Conversely, route preview did influence formperformance; climbers made fewer, and shorter stops duringtheir ascent following a preview of the route. Form perfor-mances differences remained when baseline ability levelswere taken into account, although for shorter duration ofstops only with expert climbers benefiting most from routepreview. The ability to visually inspect a climb before itsascent may represent an essential component of perfor-mance optimization.

Climbing is a popular recreational and sportingactivity that occurs outdoor at cliffs and crags andindoors at purpose-built facilities, and that hasdifferent modalities, sub-disciplines and types ofcompetition (Stiehl & Ramsey, 2005). Indoor sportclimbing is a popular form of climbing with compe-titive events judged on the level of difficulty climbed.The first climbing World Cup event was held in 1989and late in 2007, the International Federation ofSport Climbing was officially recognized by theInternational Olympic Committee.As a competitive pursuit indoor sport climbing has

triggered research interest regarding performance-related determinants and training regimes. Recentstudies have focused on physiological, kin/anthro-pometrical, injury and fitness-related aspects ofclimbing (e.g., MacLeod et al., 2007; Jones et al.,2008; Espana-Romero et al., 2009; Heyman et al.,2009; Backe et al., 2009). It has been suggested thatvariables of a psychological nature such as problem-solving ability, movement sequence recall, route-finding skills and anxiety may be crucial to successful

climbing performance (e.g., Watts, 2004; Giles et al.,2006). Although the psychological demands placedupon climber participants and the potential influ-ences on performance have been recently highlighted(Draper et al., 2008; Hodgson et al., 2009; Sanchezet al., 2010), the examination of performance-relatedpsychological determinants remains scarce (Sheel,2004; Morrison & Schoffl, 2007). The present studyexamined one of these key psychological factors:pre-ascent climbing route visual inspection (orroute finding before climbing); hereafter, ‘‘routepreview.’’Route preview is thought to enhance climbing

performance (Boschker et al., 2002; Sanchez &Torregrosa, 2005; Ferrand et al., 2006), as the abilityto recall and visualize movement sequences may beparamount to climbing performance (Sanchez &Dauby, 2009). Boschker et al. (2002) suggested thatroute preview errors ‘‘are a major reason for fallingduring climbing’’ (p. 25). Interviewed climbers andcoaches regarded route preview as crucial to optimizesubsequent ascent performance (Sanchez & Torre-

Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010 & 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S

doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01151.x2012: 22: 67–72

68

grosa, 2005). In addition, the role of route previewmay be decisive when performing ‘‘on-sight’’; thisterm describes an ascent characterized by visualinspection of the route before climbing, without priorphysical rehearsal, and then ascent without falls(Fyffe & Peter, 1997). Such style of ascent is thestandard protocol used at indoor sport climbingcompetitions whereby all climbers are allowed atime-constrained visual inspection of the route beforeascent [International Federation of Sport Climbing(IFSC), 2009]. It has been reported, precisely, thatthe lack of climbing route knowledge, before per-forming in competition, is perceived as a handicap byelite climbers (Ferrand et al., 2006).Despite the suggested key role of route preview in

sport climbing, its efficacy has not been addressedexperimentally. Hence, the relationship betweenroute preview and climbing performance, whetheroutput (fall off the wall before route completion) orform (moves and stops), is largely unknown. Thus,the purpose of the present study was to determinewhether route preview enhances indoor on-sightsport climbing performance. Past research withinthe sport domain (Fournier et al., 2008) has shownthat mental images (i.e., what climbers will generatewhen route previewing) vary with the situation (e.g.,before performing vs during performing) and accord-ing to the level of expertise. That is, what (content:e.g., visual, kinesthetic), how (characteristics: e.g.,various speeds) and why (function: to learn vs to getmotivated) mental images are imagined differentlyfrom novice to experts (Fournier et al., 2008). Thepresent research, therefore, incorporated sport clim-bers with a range of climbing abilities to account forexpertise level and specifically manipulated the routepreview (route finding before climbing) in an ecolo-gically valid indoor climbing setting to account forone given situation only (i.e., before performing anon-sight ascent). It was hypothesized that climberswith a higher level of ability would benefit from routepreview to a greater degree than climbers of a lowerability.

MethodsParticipants

Twenty-nine indoor male climbers provided informed consentto participate in the study. Climbers were divided into threeability groups following past research (Watts et al., 2003; ASciet al., 2007; Draper et al., 2010): ‘‘intermediate’’ (n5 9; abilityranging from 6a to 6b); ‘‘advanced’’ (n5 9; ability rangingfrom 7a to 7a1); and ‘‘expert’’ (n5 11; ability above 7b1).Current, rather than the highest attained, on-sight climbingability was requested because an individual’s climbing stan-dard can vary throughout a single year. The grading systemutilized in this study was the French Rating Scale of Difficulty(F-RSD) (Delignieres et al., 1993), which is commonly used inmainland Europe (Fyffe & Peter, 1997). Health and safetymeasures and risk assessment regulations of the indoor

climbing club where the study was carried out were followed.All participants were affiliated to the club where the researchwas carried out and were insured against eventual accident orinjury.

Climbing routes

Six routes of three different difficulty levels, all identifiable bycolor, were set on an artificial indoor climbing wall by twoprofessional certified route setters. They ensured that routeswithin the same level were of similar physical–technicaldifficulty and that these were within the appropriate range tomatch the different groups’ climbing ability levels. The routesof an intermediate level of difficulty [route intermediate level(RIL)] were rated as 6a (R1) and 6a1 (R2). The routes of anadvanced level of difficulty [route advanced level (RAL)] wereboth rated as 6c (R3 and R4). Finally, the routes of an expertlevel of difficulty [route expert level (REL)] were rated as 7b(R5) and 7c (R6).

Procedures

Participants were invited to climb the two routes matchingtheir climbing ability level and, where applicable, the routesbelow their own climbing ability level. Climbers in the inter-mediate group climbed two routes, those in the advancedgroup climbed four routes and the group of experts climbed allsix routes. More precisely, the order of the route and themodality of climbing (with or without route preview) wererandomly counterbalanced among participants, for each pairof routes. That is, each participant climbed, within each routedifficulty level, one route with route preview and the otherwithout route preview. In addition, each route of each pairwas climbed half of the times with route preview and the otherhalf without route preview. Finally, one-half of the partici-pants climbed routes with route preview first, whereas theother half climbed routes without route preview first.

On-sight climbing modality characteristics were followed:climbers were not informed of the grade of difficulty of theroutes and were neither allowed to physically rehearse theroutes before testing or see other climbers climbing the routes.Under the condition ‘‘with route preview,’’ similar to climbingcompetition rules, climbers were requested to visually inspectthe route for a limited period of time (3min), just beforeundertaking the climb (IFSC, 2009). Whereas, under the con-dition ‘‘without route preview,’’ the climbers started the ascentstraight after being positioned in front of the climbing wall.

Participants, who climbed one route only each testing day,were invited to warm-up in the way they normally do whenattempting on-sight climbs. Participants warmed-up in thesame way for each trial because they did not know beforehandwhich route they would climb neither they knew whether theywould climb the route with or without route previewing. Astandard warm-up was not used as it could have affectedindividual physiological and psychological preparation. Clim-bers were allowed to wear their own equipment (harness, shoesand chalk bag) and top ropes were used for both safety andlegal reasons. Top roping is the pre-arrangement of a ropefrom above; the climber is, therefore, safeguarded from a fallwhile ascending, reducing the risk of injury. Participantsclimbed though without the aid from any rope tension.

Measurements

The method of frequency counting of static (number andduration of stops) and dynamic (explorative and performa-tory movements) actions was chosen to measure climbing

Sanchez et al.

69

performance (Flahaut & Loslever, 2000; Pijpers et al., 2005).The coding of form performance consisted of (a) the numberand duration of the movements performed during the ascentof the route, and (b) the number of stops and their durationof use. With regard to the former, movements were codedeither as performatory (necessary to ascent the route; releaseof a hold and contact made with another hold, used assupport) or explorative (unnecessary to ascend the route;hold touched without being used as support). With regardto the latter, stops were coded as appropriate (resting points)or inappropriate (no resting points). Resting points, alsoknown as aid points, are places on a climbing wall suchas a combination of holds or a bolt, which are designed byroute setters to be used by climbers to rest on (Fyffe & Peter,1997).

Performances were recorded using a digital movable videocamera so as to obtain the best picture possible regardless ofwhich of the six routes were to be taped. The setup provided agood view of climbing performances and walls (e.g., gathermovements of hands and feet and differentiate color of holds).Two independent researchers viewed the recorded perfor-mances and rated participants’ output and form perfor-mances. Agreement was reached in all cases before the finalcoding.

Statistical analysis

One-way analysis of variance tests were carried out to assesswhether the groups differed in age, body mass and height.Fisher’s exact tests of independence were carried out toanalyze output performance. Two related-samples Wilcoxonrank tests with continuity correction were carried out toanalyze form performance. Only data from climbers whoreached the top of the two given routes in a same level wereincluded for analysis (e.g., R1 and R2 at RIL). Significancewas preset at Po0.05.

Results

No significant differences in participants’ age, bodymass or height were found (see Table 1). Further-more, there were no significant differences on outputperformance between climbing with route preview

and climbing without route preview (see Table 2).Precisely, route preview did not influence the like-lihood of the climber falling off the wall beforereaching the top of the route, whether at RIL(P5 0.55), RAL (P5 0.83) or REL (P5 1.0).At RIL (Table 3), 21 climbers successfully reached

the top of both R1 and R2: three intermediate, sevenadvanced and 11 experts. For these successful clim-bers, if route preview were not to be effective, thedistribution of the difference between R1 and R2would be the same (regardless of which route hadbeen climbed with route preview). Analysis showedsignificant reductions in the number and duration ofstops when climbing with route preview (see Table 3).Significant reductions remained when analysis con-sidered climbers’ levels separately, for duration ofstops (W5 0; P5 0.008) although not for number ofstops (W5 6; P5 0.11), among expert climbers only.For duration of stops, descriptive were the following:Route 1 with route preview (RP) (24.2 � 19.78),Route 1 without RP (35.5 � 31.18), Route 2 withRP (35.7 � 21.18) and Route 2 without RP(63.6 � 21.29). For number of stops, descriptivewere the following: Route 1 with RP (4.4 � 3.51),Route 1 without RP (6.0 � 3.79), Route 2 with RP(5.5 � 2.34) and Route 2 without RP (7.2 � 1.30).Note that, given the reduced number of participantssuccessfully climbing both routes at either RAL orREL, no analyses were carried out for these twolevels on process performance. In fact, only eightparticipants reached the top of both routes at RAL(three advanced and five experts), whereas at REL,no climber succeeded in both routes.

Discussion

The present study examined the efficacy of routepreview upon climbing performance in an ecologi-

Table 1. Participants age, body mass and height (mean � SD)

Intermediate (n5 9) Advanced (n5 9) Expert (n5 11) F-value P-value

Age (years) 21 � 4.3 26 � 11.4 24 � 5.8 0.86 0.43Body mass (kg) 68 � 6.2 64 � 11.5 67 � 7.9 0.45 0.64Height (cm) 178 � 5.3 181 � 9.9 177 � 10.4 0.51 0.60

Table 2. Number of participants’ output performances at intermediate, advanced and expert difficulty level routes

With route preview Without route preview

Successful Unsuccessful Successful Unsuccessful

Routes intermediate level (n5 29) 23 6 22 7Routes advanced level (n5 20) 10 10 9 11Routes expert level (n5 8)* 0 8 1 7

*Three expert climbers missed testing on these routes due to injury.

Route preview in climbing

70

cally valid indoor climbing setting. Findings showedthat route preview did not influence output perfor-mance. Climbers using visual inspection were nomore likely to finish the ascent than those withoutthe option of using visual inspection. Conversely,route preview did influence form performance; clim-bers made fewer, and shorter stops during theirascent following preview of the route. Moreover,experts benefited most from such a pre-ascent climb-ing route visual inspection. Precisely, form perfor-mances differences remained when baseline abilitylevels were taken into account, although for shorterduration of stops only with expert climbers benefitingmost from route preview.Boschker et al. (2002) studied the relation between

skill, perception and memory in sport climbing; theyinvestigated the information picked up during routepreview and the effect of expertise on that process.Their findings showed differences between novicesand experts, the latter recalling more clustered in-formation and focusing rather on the functionalcharacteristics of the wall while the former notrecalling such clustered information and mostlyreporting the structural features of the holds. How-ever, performances assessed were the participants’climbing configurations reproductions, made on areduced-scale model, and their behavior (gesture andverbal) while reproducing these configurations. Thus,no physical/actual climbing performance was exam-ined.In our study, the experts may have outperformed

on the climbing wall the rest of the participants forthe same reason Boschker et al.’s (2002) expertsoutperformed their non-experienced participants offthe wall (i.e., in reproducing the climbing route on areduced-scale model). Experts in our study mightperform better because they take advantage of routepreview by focusing on the functional aspects of thewall (linked climbing moves), rather than on itsstructural features, which is what novices predomi-nantly do (see Boschker et al., 2002). Furthermore, itcould be suggested that the expert level of route

preview skill indeed, matches, the expert level of‘‘overall’’ skill climbing, as defined in previous re-search as being above 71 F-RSD (Watts et al., 2003;Watts, 2004; ASci et al., 2007). Because the routes ofintermediate difficulty, which were the two that weexamined in detail, were technically and physicallyclimbable by all our participants, and because po-tential extraneous participant variables were ex-cluded (e.g., body mass and height), the differencesobserved in form performance between the experts(above 7b1 F-RSD) and the rest (below 7a1F-RSD) of our climbers could fairly be attributedin our study to their different route preview skills.Although caution is still needed as other variables(not measured in our study) such as imagery abilityand imagery practice may contribute to the partici-pants’ route preview skill level (Cumming & Hall,2002).Ripoll and colleagues studied the relationship

between the semantic (understanding) and the sen-sorimotor (acting) visual functions in sport climbing(Dupuy & Ripoll, 1989; Ripoll, 1991; Dupuy et al.,1992). Climbers’ visual and motor behaviors werecompared while climbing an unknown route (on-sight) with climbing the same route well practiced(Dupuy et al., 1992), and while climbing two routesections with different handholds configurations(Dupuy & Ripoll, 1989). Their findings showed thatexpert climbers were able to select the optimalclimbing options to negotiate the route from theirfirst attempt while less expert climbers needed severalsuccessive trials to reach their optimal performancelevel (Ripoll, 1991). However, on-sight performances(route’s first attempt climb with no previous physicalrehearsal) were compared with rehearsed perfor-mances (same route physically practiced) and/orthese comparisons were made using different routes(different number of handholds). Thus, neither thesame type of performance modality nor similarroutes were examined.Interestingly, such form performance differences

between climbing with or without route preview

Table 3. Process performances (mean � SD) of participants who successfully climbed the two routes of intermediate difficulty (N5 21)

Route 1 without RP Route 1 with RP Route 2 without RP Route 2 with RP W-value P-value

Total ascent actions (F) 74.3 � 7.6 72.9 � 9.7 77.3 � 6.5 78.0 � 4.4 55.5 1.00Total ascent time (D) 125.9 � 20.4 127.2 � 24.1 144.6 � 36.1 130.7 � 17.8 40.5 0.32Performatory moves (F) 72.6 � 7.0 69.7 � 10.0 72.5 � 4.6 74.0 � 3.3 52.0 0.86Performatory moves (D) 121.9 � 17.4 120.1 � 25.3 132.8 � 25.0 122.0 � 15.3 42.5 0.40Exploratory moves (F) 1.6 � 1.7 3.2 � 2.7 4.8 � 4.7 4.0 � 2.0 75.0 0.16Exploratory moves (D) 4.0 � 5.3 7.1 � 7.1 11.8 � 15.5 8.7 � 5.2 74.5 0.18Appropriate stops (F) 5.9 � 3.0 4.1 � 2.8 6.6 � 1.7 5.9 � 2.0 26.5 0.047*Appropriate stops (D) 33.7 � 18.8 33.5 � 25.6 66.2 � 39.7 38.8 � 17.4 20.0 0.015*Inappropriate stops (F) 0.00 0.2 � 0.4 0.8 � 1.3 0.00 44.0 0.28Inappropriate stops (D) 0.00 1.2 � 2.7 4.6 � 10.6 0.00 49.5 0.64

*Significant at Po0.05.

RP, route preview; F, frequency (count); D, duration (s).

Sanchez et al.

71

found among our expert climbers are consistent withthose observed by Dupuy and colleagues (Dupuy &Ripoll, 1989; Dupuy et al., 1992). They found thattheir expert climbers were able to select the optimalclimbing options to negotiate the route from theirfirst attempt. Similar to our findings, such betterperformances concerned mainly body immobiliza-tions (resting points in our study), whereas theirbody displacement (performatory moves in ourstudy) remained unchanged (Dupuy et al., 1992).Moreover, when comparisons were made using tworoute sections with different handhold configurations(Dupuy & Ripoll, 1989), a similar pattern was found.That is, reductions concerned only resting pointswhereas the duration of phases of body displacementand number of displacements remained unchanged(Ripoll, 1991). Such reductions in resting points,during which the route can also be inspected (i.e.,route finding during climbing), would indicate thatexperts, contrary to non-experts, were able to benefitfrom route preview (route finding before climbing).Hence, experts did not need to stop that long or thatoften, once on the wall, for route visual inspection.The present study captured the essence of route

preview and the inherent physiological and emo-tional demands of climbing by moving from previouslaboratory-based or qualitative studies to an ecolo-gically valid indoor climbing environment. Compar-isons with past research are not straightforwardgiven the extremely limited research investigatingroute preview-related processes and that these fewstudies had not been designed to assess route previewefficacy upon actual/physical performance. Becauseof resource limitations, the sample size was, there-fore, relatively small and the interaction betweenclimbers’ climbing ability and route difficulty levelscould not be investigated fully. Furthermore, it mustbe acknowledged that there is an inherent problemwhen using multiple climbing routes that are rated assimilar (in difficulty terms), as difficulty ratings aresubjective (Delignieres et al., 1993). Hence, it ispossible for perceived difficulty to vary with anthro-pometry, physiological and psychological traits ofthe individual climber. Although the specific routesused in this study were rated for difficulty by certifiedroute setters, it is still possible that a given route maybe a better physiological or psychological fit for agiven climber. Also, underlying mechanisms thatmay mediate route preview, such as content, char-acteristics and function of the participants’ mentalimages and the role of memorization strategies andimagery ability, were not considered (Ille & Cadopi,1999; Fournier et al., 2008). Thus, further researchthat investigates such mechanisms is warranted.Finally, given the influence emotional states (Sanchezet al., 2010), imagery skills (Sanchez & Dauby, 2009),personality differences (Llewellyn & Sanchez, 2008;

Llewellyn et al., 2008) and type of ascent modality(e.g., leading vs top-roping; Draper et al., 2008, 2010)have upon actual climbing performance, their (inter-active) role within route previewing warrants re-search. It is necessary to examine the role of suchvariables to propose, in the future, fully effectiveclimbing-specific training programs (Bishop, 2008).Findings from performance-related domains otherthan sport where very similar processes and under-lying mechanisms are engaged to produce best per-formances must guide future research within thesport of climbing. Of particular interest may be theexperimental work developed within the area ofmusic reading where research has examined its per-ceptual-cognitive coding processes, has comparedperformers (musicians vs no musicians), and hasanalyzed differences between master, good andpoor ‘‘readers’’ (see Sloboda, 1984, for a review).

Perspectives

The psychological techniques that climbers utilize tooptimize performance are, at best, borrowed fromother sports. In sport climbing, similarly to othersports practiced at a competitive level, an appropri-ate sport-specific psychological preparation is criti-cal. Findings from this study may assist sportpsychologists to the development of effective sportclimbing mental skills training programs.The ability to visually inspect a climb before its

ascent may represent an essential component ofperformance optimization, as success and failure atroutes of a higher performance standard becomeincreasingly marginal. Thus, sport climbers shouldincorporate in their general training programs tech-niques and strategies that promote the capturing andprocessing of information that are involved withinthe route preview process. We have established thatroute preview is an important aspect of optimalindoor sport climbing performance. Further researchis needed to establish how this perceptual-cognitiveskill can most effectively be incorporated into train-ing regimes.

Key words: route preview, route finding, perceptual-cognitive, expertise, climbing performance parameter.

Acknowledgements

Our gratitude to the climbers who participated in the study, toBenedicte Herbiet and Pierre Bastian for their assistance withthe data collection, to Marc Boschker, Raymond Bruyer,Vanesa Espana-Romero and Raoul Oudejans for their com-ments on earlier drafts and to the managers, staff, coaches andcertified route setters of the indoor climbing club ‘‘Entre Cielet Terre’’ (Belgium) for their support and assistance through-out the research.

Route preview in climbing

72

References

ASci FH, Demirhan G, Dinc SC.Psychological profile of Turkish rockclimbers: an examination of climbingexperience and route difficulty. PerceptMot Skills 2007: 104: 892–900.

Backe S, Ericson L, Janson S, Timpka T.Rock climbing injury rates andassociated risk factors in a generalclimbing population. Scand J Med SciSports 2009: 19: 850–856.

Bishop D. An applied research model forthe sport sciences. Sports Med 2008:36: 253–263.

Boschker MSJ, Bakker FC, Michaels CF.Memory for the functionalcharacteristics of climbing walls:perceiving affordances. J Mot Behav2002: 34: 25–36.

Cumming J, Hall C. Deliberate imagerypractice: the development of imageryskills in competitive athletes. J SportSci 2002: 20: 137–145.

Delignieres D, Famose J-P, Thepeaut-Mathieu C, Fleurance P. Apsychophysical study of difficultyrating in rock climbing. Int J SportPsychol 1993: 24: 404–416.

Draper N, Jones GA, Fryer S, HodgsonCI, Blackwell G. Effect of an on-sightlead on the physiological andpsychological responses to rockclimbing. J Sport Sci Med 2008: 7:492–498.

Draper N, Jones GA, Fryer S, HodgsonCI, Blackwell G. Physiological andpsychological responses to lead and toprope climbing for intermediate rockclimbers. Eur J Sport Sci 2010: 10: 13–20.

Dupuy C, Ripoll H, Flahaut J. Spatial–temporal motor organization of sportclimbing. In: Laurent M, Therme P,eds. Recherches en activites physiqueset sportives. Aix-Marseille II: Centre deRecherche de l’UEREPS, 1992: 3: 233–253.

Dupuy C, Ripoll H. Analysis of visual–motor strategies in climbing. Sci Mot1989: 7: 18–24.

Espana-Romero V, Ortega-Porcel FB,Artero EG, Jimenez-Pavon D, Gutierrez-Sainz A, Castillo Garzon MJ, Ruiz JR.

Climbing time to exhaustion is adeterminant of climbing performance inhigh-level sport climbers. Eur J Physiol2009: 107: 517–525.

Ferrand C, Tetrard S, Fontayne P. Self-handicapping in rock climbing: aqualitative approach. J Appl SportPsychol 2006: 18: 271–280.

Flahaut JJ, Loslever P. Statisticalcharacterisation of movements. II:application. Travail Hum 2000: 63:1–29.

Fournier JF, Deremaux S, Bernier F.Content, characteristics and functionof mental images. Psychol Sport Exerc2008: 9: 734–748.

Fyffe A, Peter I. The handbook ofclimbing. Harmondsworth, Middlesex:Pelham Books, Penguin Books Ltd,1997.

Giles LV, Rhodes EC, Taunton JE. Thephysiology of rock climbing. SportMed 2006: 36: 529–545.

Heyman E, De Geus B, Mertens I,Meeusen R. Effects of four recoverymethods on repeated maximal rockclimbing performance. Med Sci SportExerc 2009: 41: 1303–1310.

Hodgson CI, Draper N, McMorris T,Jones G, Fryer S, Coleman I. Perceivedanxiety and plasma cortisolconcentration following rock climbingwith differing safety-rope protocols. BrJ Sport Med 2009: 43: 531–535.

International Federation of SportClimbing (IFSC). Internationalclimbing competitions rules. Availableat http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/?page_name5 handbook (accessedOctober 7, 2009).

Ille A, Cadopi M. Memory for movementsequences in gymnastics: effects of ageand skill level. J Mot Behav 1999: 31:290–300.

Jones G, Asghar A, Llewellyn DJ.The epidemiology of rock climbinginjuries. Br J Sport Med 2008: 42: 773–778.

Llewellyn DJ, Sanchez X. Individualdifferences and risk taking in rockclimbing. Psychol Sport Exerc 2008: 9:413–426.

Llewellyn DJ, Sanchez X, Ashghar A,Jones G. Self-efficacy, risk taking andperformance in rock climbing. Pers IndDiff 2008: 45: 75–81.

MacLeod D, Sutherland DL, Buntin L,Whitaker A, Aitchison T, Watt I,Bradley J, Grant S. Physiologicaldeterminants of climbing-specific fingerendurance and sport rock climbingperformance. J Sport Sci 2007: 25:1433–1443.

Morrison AB, Schoffl VR. Review of thephysiological responses to rockclimbing in young climbers. Br J SportMed 2007: 41: 852–861.

Pijpers JR, Oudejans RRD, Bakker FC.Anxiety-induced changes in movementbehaviour during the execution of acomplex whole-body task. Q J ExpPsychol 2005: 58A: 428–445.

Ripoll H. The understanding–actingprocess in sport: the relationshipbetween the semantic and thesensorimotor visual function. Int JSport Psychol 1991: 22: 221–243.

Sanchez X, Boschker MSJ, Llewellyn DJ.Pre-performance psychological statesand performance in an elite climbingcompetition. Scan J Med Sci Sport2010: 20: 356–363.

Sanchez X, Dauby N. Imagery and video-modelling in sport climbing. Can JBehav Sci 2009: 41: 93–101.

Sanchez X, Torregrosa M. The role ofpsychological factors in sport climbing:a qualitative analysis. R Psicol Dep2005: 14: 177–194.

Sheel AW. Physiology of sport rock clim-bing. Br J Sport Med 2004: 38: 355–359.

Sloboda J.A. Experimental studies ofmusic reading: a review. Music Percept1984: 2: 222–236.

Stiehl J, Ramsey T. Climbing walls: acomplete guide. Human Kinetics:Champaign, IL, 2005.

Watts PB, Joubert LM, Lish AK, MastJD, Wilkins B. Anthropometry ofyoung competitive sport rock climbers.Br J Sport Med 2003: 37: 420–424.

Watts PB. Physiology of difficult rockclimbing. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004: 91:361–372.

Sanchez et al.