Table 1.

Studies fulfilling inclusion criteria.

Studya	Sampleb	Designc	Taskd	Measuree	Outcomef
SPATIAL
Boschker and Bakker (2002) [MMD] [Journal article]	N = 24,18–28 yrs, no experience: control subgroup (n = 8); dual grasping model subgroup (n = 7); arm-crossing technique model subgroup (n = 9)	A. Pedagogical intervention (model) i. control (observed the climbing wall) ii. simple technique model (observed an expert climber 4 times using a basic climbing technique) iii. advanced technique model (observed an expert climber 4 times using an advanced climbing technique) B. Practice (t × 5) [note: all observations were on a video, when observing the expert model, playback speed was first in slow motion (x2) and then normal (x2)]	Climb (indoor, artificial, top-roped, F-RSD = 5c [1, Intermediate], crux = 1,7 m height, 3.5 m width, 98.2 deg relative to floor, 22 holds) instructed to climb using the same technique as observed model otherwise self-preferred	Movement (hip trajectory, discrete actions) single camera: 1. GIE 2. falls [climb time]	At trial 2, 3, and 4, the advanced technique subgroup climbed significantly faster than the control and simple technique subgroup; At trial 1, 1 was significantly lower in the advanced technique subgroup compared to the simple technique subgroup and significantly lower in the control subgroup compared to the simple technique subgroup; At trials 2, 3 and 4, 1 was significantly lower in the advanced technique subgroup compared to the control and simple technique subgroups
Cordier et al. (1993) [MMD] [Journal article]	N = 7: average skill subgroup (n = 3, F-RSD = 6b-6c [1.75–2.25, Intermediate]); highly skilled subgroup (n = 4, F-RSD = 7a-7b [2.5–3, Intermediate-, Advanced])	A. Skill B. Practice (t × 10)	Climb (indoor, artificial, top-roped, F-RSD = 6a [1.25, Intermediate], ~10 m high) self-preferred	Movement (hip trajectory) single camera: 1. GIE 2. fractal dimensions [climb time]	1 was significantly lower in highly skilled subgroup; 1 significantly decreased with practice in both groups; [note: a significant interaction effect between skill and practice showed that 1 reduced faster in the higher skilled subgroup compared to the lesser skilled subgroup; a clear correlation was shown between climb time and entropy with higher climb times being associated with higher entropy]
Cordier et al. (1994b) [MMD] [Journal article]	Average skill subgroup (F-RSD = 6b [1.75, Intermediate]); highly skilled subgroup (F-RSD = 7b [3, Advanced]) [note: the exact number of individuals making up each sub-group not reported]	A. Skill B. Practice (t x 10)	See above, Cordier et al. (1993)	Movement (hip trajectory) single camera: 1. GIE [climb time]	Highly skilled subgroup showed less 1 compared to the average skilled subgroup; with practice 1 significantly reduced; highly skilled subgroup reduced entropy faster with practice than the skilled group; [note: highly skilled subgroup reduced entropy to asymptote by trial three whereas the average skill subgroup did not reach a clear asymptote after 10 trials of practice]
Cordier et al. (1994b) [MMD] [Journal article]	N = 10: non-expert subgroup (n = 5, F-RSD = 6b [1.75, Intermediate]); expert subgroup (n = 5, F-RSD = 7b [3, Advanced])	A. Skill B. Practice (t × 10)	See above, Cordier et al. (1993)	Movement (hip trajectory) single camera: 1. GIE [climb time]	Highly skilled subgroups showed overall less entropy compared to the average skilled subgroup; With practice entropy significantly reduced; Highly skilled group reduced entropy faster with practice than the average skilled group; Highly skilled group reduced entropy to asymptote by trial three. Unskilled group did not appear to reach asymptote.
Pijpers et al. (2003) [RM] [Journal article] – Experiment 2	N = 17, 11 M, 19–26 yrs, little to no experience in climbing	A. Route design (height) i. mean height of foot holds 0.3 m from the ground ii. foot holds 3.7 m from the ground	Climb (indoor, artificial, top-rope, flush vertical, 6 hand- and 5 foot-holds, 7 m height, 3.5 m width) nr [note: difficulty assumed as easily achievable; participants practiced on route before testing; each trial required 20 sec continuous climbing]	Movement (hip trajectory) single camera: 1. GIE [climb time, HR and state anxiety]	1 and climb time significantly increased when climbing in the high condition
Sanchez et al. (2010) [IG] [Journal article]	N = 19, 24.6 yrs ± 4.0 SD, elite climbers, F-RSD = 7b+ to 8b [3.25–4.5, Advanced-Elite]: successful subgroup (n = 9); unsuccessful subgroup (n = 7) [note: successful subgroup membership criteria required that the climbers get to at least the 39th hold (out of 50). Those who did not were assigned to the unsuccessful subgroup.]	A. Skill	Climb (artificial, F-RSD = 7c+ [3.75, Advanced]], crux = 2, rest points = 2, on-sight, 16 m high, 50 handholds) competition [preview = 5 mins]	Movement (hip trajectory) single camera: 1. GIE (section 1 crux, section 1, section 2) 2. climb time (section 1 crux, section 1, section 2) [precompetitive state anxiety] [note: 16/19 of the climbers were analyzed; for analysis the route was broken into 2 sections and 2 crux points]	2 was significantly longer in the successful subgroup compared to the unsuccessful subgroup in the first crux.
Zampagni et al. (2011) [IG] [Journal article]	N = 18 M: elite subgroup (n = 9, 32.1 yrs ± 7.6 SD, F-RSD = 7b-8b [3–4.5, Advanced-Elite], climbing age = 13.9 yrs); no experience subgroup (n = 9, 31.9 yrs ± 8.5 SD)	A. Skill	Climbing (artificial, top-rope, 20 holds, uniform holds = 13 cm high, 16 cm wide, 12 cm deep) under instruction [note: instructed on the sequence of which limb to reposition and to which hold, this pattern was repeated until climbers reached the top; climbers were required to complete each cycle within 4 s]	Movement, applied force (COM, hands and feet) mulit-camera, instrumented holds: 1. COM anterior/posterior and lateral motion (min, mean, max) 2. force (vertical component)	The expert subgroup climbed with 1 significantly further from the wall and with larger lateral displacements compared to the no experience subgroup; 2 showed significantly larger oscillations in the expert subgroup compared to the no experience subgroup.
TEMPORAL
Billat et al. (1995) [RM] [journal article]	N = 4, 22.2 yrs ± 2.3 SD, F-RSD = 7b [3, Advanced], climbing age = 3 yrs	A. Hold (size) and Wall (slope) i. smaller more complex hold design ii. steeper slope [note: difficulty matched]	Climb (indoor, artificial, F-RSD = 7b [3, Advanced], red-point, 15 m high, ~10 deg overhang) self-preferred [note: 5 hrs practice on each route prior to testing]	Movement (discrete actions) single camera: 1. dynamic time (discernable motion at the hips) 2. static time (no discernable motion at the hips) [note: additional variables of interest related to oxygen consumption]	1 was significantly longer on the smaller more complex route compared to the route with a larger overhang.
Cordier et al. (1996) [MMD] [Journal article]	N = 10: non-expert subgroup (n = 5, F-RSD = <7a [ <2.5, Intermediate]); expert subgroup (n = 5, F-RSD > 7a [>2.5, Advanced])	A. Skill B. Practice (t × 10)	See above, Cordier et al. (1993)	Movement (hip trajectory) single camera: 1. frequency of movement (Hz) 2. harmonic analysis	Expert subgroup generated approximately one movement every three seconds and were closer to the harmonic model by a factor of about two compared to the non-expert subgroup
Draper et al. (2011b) [MMD] [Journal article]	N = 18, 12 M, 25.6 ± 4.5 intermediate level, onsight lead F-RSD = 5+ [1, Intermediate], red-point F-RSD = 6a [1.25, Intermediate] climbing age 3.6yrs ± 3.1	A. Route Type i. tope-rope ii. lead rope B. Route completion i. yes (n = 11) ii. no (n = 7) [note: group formed post hoc based on those who did or did not fall]	Climb (indoor, artificial, F-RSD = 6a, 12.5 m height, 7 quick-draws) self-preferred	Movement (climb time) single-camera [yrs experience, NASA-TLX, CSAI-2D, oxygen consumption, blood lactate, HR] 1. climb time (between successive quick-draws)	Experience was the best predictor of climbing success and was also correlated with confidence and faster climbing within challenging parts of an ascent. Climbers that fell were slower through the route
White and Olsen (2010) [Journal article] [RM]	N = 6, elite, age = 28yrs ±5 SD, climbing age = 16yrs ± 5SD [note: sample argued elite, held an IFSC World ranking for the World Cup boulder series and members of British national team]	Observational	Climb (indoor, artificial, bouldering) competition [a total of 12 climbs were recorded, two climbs per individual, each on a different route]	Movement (discrete actions) two-cameras: 1. hand contact time 2. reach time 3. dynamic time 4. static time [number of attempts, climb time, total attempt time, between attempt recovery time]	A larger proportion of time is spent in dynamic movement relative to static. Hand contact time was larger than reach time
ACTIVITY ANALYSIS
Nieuwenhuys et al. (2008) [RM] [Journal article]	N = 12, 7 M, 24.4 yrs ± 1.98 SD, no experience	A. Route design (height) i. holds 0.44 m from the ground ii. holds 4.25 m from the ground	Climb (indoor, artificial, top-rope, 26 hand- and foot-holds) self-preferred [note: difficulty level assumed to be easily achievable; participants practiced on the route prior to testing]	Visual behavior, movement (gaze-location, discrete actions) eye-tracker, single camera; 1. fixation (duration, number, average duration, duration per location, duration per type, search rate) [note: possible fixation locations included handholds, hands, wall, other and possible fixation types were exploratory or performatory] 2. mean distance of fixation 3. movement time (climb time, stationary time, moving time (hands and feet), average movement duration between holds) 4. mean distance of hand movements [nb: additional measures of interest were HR and anxiety]	Climb time, movement time between holds and time spent static was significantly longer and number of movements were significantly greater in the high condition compared to the low condition; Fixation durations were significantly longer, number of fixations significantly increased, and search rate significantly decreased in the high condition compared to the low condition.
Pijpers et al. (2005) [RM] [Journal article] – Experiment 1	N = 8 M, 31.4 yrs ± 4.81 SD, no experience	A. Route design (height) i. mean height of foot holds 0.4 m from the ground ii. foot holds 5.0 m from the ground	Climb (indoor, artificial, top-rope, flush vertical, flash, 7 m height, 3.5 m width, 7 hand- and 6 foot-holds, mean inter-hold distance = 0.15 m) as fast and as safely as possible without falling: [note: difficulty not given but assumed to be easily achievable; participants practiced on low traverse prior to testing and observed an expert model perform the traverse on video; each trial required 2 traversals]	Movement (discrete actions) multi-camera: 1. number of exploratory movements (number of times a hold is touched without use as support) 2. number of performatory movements 3. Use of additional holds (two holds not needed to achieve traversal were set into the route) [climb time, HR and anxiety data]	1 and climb time was significantly higher in the high condition compared to the low condition
Pijpers et al. (2006) [RM] [Journal article] – Experiment 2	N = 12, 6 F, 20.8 yrs ± 3.57SD, no experience	A. Route design (height) i. holds on average 0.36 m from the ground (t x 4) ii. holds 3.69 m from the ground (t x 4)	Climb (indoor, artificial, top-rope, flush vertical, 7 m height, 3.5 m width, 15 hand- and 15 foot-holds) as fast and as safely as possible without falling [note: difficulty not rated but assumed to be easily achievable; participants practiced on route before testing; each trial required 2 traversals]	Movement (discrete actions) single camera: 1. number of performatory actions (hands and feet) 2. number of exploratory actions (hands and feet) [climb time, state anxiety]	1, 2 and climb time increased significantly when climbing at height compared to close to the ground
CROSSED
Fryer et al. (2012) [IG] [Journal article]	N = 22: intermediate subgroup (n = 11, 7 M, F-RSD = 6a/ Ewbank = 18/19 [1.25, Intermediate], climbing age = 3 ± 1.15 yrs); advanced subgroup (n = 11, 10 M, F-RSD = 6c+/ Ewbank = 21/22 [2.25, Advanced], climbing age = 3.3 ± 1.06 yrs)	A. Skill	Climb (indoor, artificial, top-roped, F-RSD = 6a [1.25, Intermediate] and 6c+ [2.25, Intermediate], on-sight, 12.15 m high, overhang) self-preferred [preview = 5 min] [note: difficulty matched to subgroup skill levels]	Movement (discrete actions) single camera: 1. time spent static (no hip motion) 2. time spent actively resting (shaking the limbs) [note: additional variables of interest related to HR, mood state, anxiety]	Advanced subgroup spent significantly greater proportion of their climb time in static states and more of the static time actively resting compared to the intermediate subgroup; [note: significantly lower heart rates in the advanced subgroup compared to the intermediate subgroup are interpreted as related to the time spent in active recovery]
Pijpers et al. (2005) [RM] [Journal article] – Experiment 2	N = 15, 13 M, 20.7 ± 2.22 SD yrs, no experience	A. Route design (height) i. mean height of foot holds 0.4 m from the ground ii. foot holds 4.9 m from the ground	Climb (indoor, artificial, top-rope, flush vertical, 7 m height, 3.5 m width, 6 hand- and 5 foot-holds) as fast and as safely as possible without falling: [note: difficulty not given but assumed to be easily achievable; participants practiced on low traverse prior to testing and observed an expert model perform the traverse on video; each trial; 4 traversals required per condition]	Movement (discrete actions) mulit-camera, instrumented holds: 1. number of exploratory movements 2. number of performatory movements (hands and feet) 3. rest between traversals 4. contact time (total, hands, feet, average per hold, total and for feet and hands) [climb time, HR, anxiety]	1 and 2 (feet only) was significantly greater and 4 (total, feet and hands, average total and average feet) was significantly longer in the high condition compared to the low condition. [note: climb time was significantly longer in the high condition compared to the low condition]
Sanchez et al. (2012) [MMD] [Journal article]	N = 29: intermediate subgroup, (n = 9, F-RSD = 6a – 6b [1.25–1.75, Intermediate]); advanced subgroup, (n = 9, F-RSD = 7a-7a+ [2.5–2.75, Intermediate-Advanced]), expert subgroup, (n = 11, F-RSD > 7b+ [>3.25, Advanced])	A. Skill B. Preview: i. with preview (3 min) ii. without preview	Climb (indoor, top-rope, on-sight) self-preferred [preview = 3 minutes (when given)] [note: a total of 6 routes were involved, route difficulties as follows: i. 2 intermediate routes (6a [1.25, Intermediate], 6a+[1.5, Intermediate]) ii. 2 advanced routes (both 6c [2.25, Intermediate]) iii. 2 expert routes (7b, 7c [3.5, Advanced]); participants only climbed routes that were either equal to or less than their F-RSD level]	Movement (discrete actions) single camera: 1. number of movements (performatory and exploratory) 2. duration of movements (performatory and exploratory) 3. number of stops (appropriate and inappropriate) 4. duration of stops (appropriate and inappropriate)	3 (appropriate) and 4 (appropriate) were significantly longer when climbing without preview in the expert subgroups compared to the intermediate and advanced subgroups on the route matched to skill level.
Seifert et al. (2013b) [IG] [Journal article]	N = 15 M: expert subgroup (n = 7, 32.1 yrs ± 4.0 SD, F-RSD = 7a+ to 7c [2.75–3.5, Advanced], F-RSD for ice falls = 6–7, rock-climbing age = 17.1, ice climbing age = 10.4 yrs); beginner subgroup (n = 8, 28.5 yrs ± 6.4 SD, climbing age ~ 20 hrs practice on artificial walls, no experience in ice climbing)	A. Skill	Climb (outdoors, ice fall, 85 deg ramp, 30 m high, top-rope) self-preferred [note: Route difficulty: i. grade 5+ (F-RSD for ice-falls) ii. grade 4 (F-RSD for ice-falls); participants only climbed routes that were equal to their F-RSD level]	Movement (upper and lower body) single camera: 1. exploration index (ratio of ice tool swings to definitive anchorages for upper and lower limbs) 2. relative angular position (upper and lower limbs pairs relative to the horizontal)	1 showed a 1:1 ratio in the expert subgroup for both the upper and lower limbs whereas 1 showed a ratio of 0.6 and 0.2 in the upper and lower limbs respectively in the beginner subgroup (i.e., more non performatory movements); 2 showed more variability in the relative angular positions in the expert subgroup compared to the novice subgroup.
Seifert et al. (2014a) [Journal article]	N = 8, 21.4 yrs ± 2.4SD, top-rope, F-RSD = 6a [2, Intermediate], climbing age = 4.1yrs ± 2.1 SD	A. Route design (holds) i. single edged (all edges parallel to ground) ii. double edged (one edge parallel to ground, one edge perpendicular to ground) B. Practice (4 trials)	Climb (indoors, artificial, top-roped, on-sight and practice, F-RSD = 5c [1, Intermediate] 10 m height, 20 holds, preview = 3 mins) self-preferred [note: each hold had two graspable edges]	Movement (hip) worn sensor 1. jerk coefficient (normalized) [note: rotation and position analysis] 2. Exploratory movements	1 was higher on double edged (more complex) route. 1 decreased with practice. 2 decreased with practice. [note: of additional interest was the strong correlation between rotational and positional coefficients of jerk]
Seifert et al. (2013a) [IG] [Journal article]	N = 15, 24.5 yrs ± 4.5 SD, naïve ice climbers: novice subgroup (n = 10, F-RSD <5 [<0.75, Lower grade], climbing age = 10 hrs practice on artificial walls); intermediate subgroup (n = 5, F-RSD = 6a [<1.25, Intermediate], climbing age = 3 yrs)	A. Skill [note: research question of interest was whether skill influenced transfer to different environmental properties based on the climbers history. IV corresponds to: B. Transfer i. rock climbing; ii. ice climbing.]	Climb (outdoors, ice, 30 m high, top-rope, route F-RSD for ice falls = 4) self-preferred	Movement (discrete actions) single camera: 1. exploration index (ratio of ice tool swings to definitive anchorages for upper and lower limbs) 2. relative angular position (upper and lower limbs pairs relative to the horizontal) 3. relative phase (upper and lower limb pairs) [note: see note in Seifert et al. (2011)] 4. vertical distance climbed in 5 mins 5. plateau duration (plateau defined as less than 0.15 m of vertical displacement for longer than 5 s)	1 was closer to a ratio of one swing to one definitive anchorage for intermediate subgroup compared to the novice subgroup; 2 and 3 showed significantly greater variability in the intermediate subgroup compared to the novice subgroup; 4 was significantly greater and 5 was significantly shorter in the intermediate subgroup compared to the novice subgroup. [note: of additional interest in this study was to undertake an unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis using the DVs to classify the climbers into different skill based subgroups
Seifert et al. (2014b) [IG] [Journal article]	N = 14; expert climber subgroup (n = 7, 32.1 ± 6.1 SD, F-RSD for rock = 7a ± 7c [2.75–3.5, Intermediate], F-RSD for icefalls = 6–7, climbing age = 17.4 yrs ± 5.6); beginner subgroup (n = 7, 29.4 yrs ± 6.8, climbing age = <20 hrs indoor climbing practice)	A. Skill	Climb (outdoors, ice, top-rope; 30 m high) self-preferred [note: a total of 2 routes were involved, the expert subgroup were tested on a grade 5+ (F-RSD for ice-falls); the beginner subgroup were tested on a grade 4 (F-RSD for ice-falls)]	Movement, verbalization (discrete actions, self-confrontation interview) single camera, audio: 1. number and duration of stops 2. relative angular position (upper and lower limbs pairs relative to the horizontal) 3. exploratory and performatory actions 4. verbalisations i. perceptions ii. actions iii. intentions	Expert subgroup achieved greater vertical displacement, had more stoppages but that were shorter in duration, explored a larger angular range with ice-tools, less exploratory actions compared to beginner subgroup. Expert subgroup verbalized about information related to behavioral opportunities that were multi-modal and intentions were focused on vertical traversal. Beginners focused on visual cues for putting their ice-hooks into the wall and focused intentions on remaining on the wall
Sibella et al. (2007) [RM] [Journal article]	N = 12, 30.6 yrs 16–49, recreational, non-competitive climbers, training 1–2 x per week: agility style climber subgroup (n = 1); force style climber subgroup (n = 1)	A. Skill [note: skill groups formed post hoc, by identifying different climbing strategies using kinematic measures]	Climb (indoor, artificial, top-rope, F-RSD = 4b [0.25, Lower grade], 3 m traverse, 3 m ascent) self-preferred [note: t x 5, data averaged across participants]	Movement (COM) multi-camera: 1. GIE [note: computed for frontal, sagittal and transverse planes] 2. absolute velocity (COM) 3. absolute acceleration (COM) 4. power of acceleration time course (COM) 5. mean number of holds in contact per recorded frame of video (60 hz)	1 was significantly lower (frontal and sagittal planes), 3 and 4 was significantly lower, and 5 was significantly higher in the agility style climber compared to the force style climber; 2 was significantly lower in the agility style climber compared to the entire group of climbers and 2 was significantly higher in the force style climber compared to the entire group of climbers

^aAuthor (date) [experimental design] publication type.

^bSample size; (sample characteristics: age, variability, climbing age, reported ability level [ability level converted to Watts]); subgroups.

^cIndependent variable: A, B; level: i, …, iii.

^dTask, climb; (route properties: location (indoors; outdoors), wall properties (artificial; rock; ice, height, slope), type (top-rope; lead), route difficulty [Watts conversion (see^b)]; instructions; [preview time].

^eDependent variable type; (level or nature of analysis); measurement device; dependent variable 1, …, 5 (description and sub-levels) [additional variables].

^fVariable(s) reported showing significant effect: 1, …, 5 (description of direction of effect and reported interpretation as position or negative for performance).

COF, coefficient of friction; COP, center of pressure; CPEI, climbing performance evaluation inventory; CRP, continuous relative phase; Crux, a part of a route more difficult than others; deg, degrees; DV, dependent variable; F, female; flash, individuals have had a chance to observe another climber on the route prior to making an attempt; F-RSD, french rating scale of difficulty; IG, Independent groups; IV, independent variable; GIE, geometric index of entropy; HR, heart rate; hrs, hours; Hz, cycles per second; M, male; m, meters; max, maximum; min, minimum; mins, minutes; MMD, mixed methods design; NASA-TLX, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index; nr, not reported; on-sight, the first attempt of a climbing route; PCA, Principle component analysis; red point, refers to performance on a route that has been previously practiced; s, seconds; SD, standard deviation; t, trials; UIAA, Union Internationale des Associations d'Alpinisme; vs., versus; yrs, years.