View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Effect of Large Visual Illusion and External Focus of Attention on Gaze Behavior and Learning of Dart Throw Skill

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Effect of Large Visual Illusion and External Focus of Attention on Gaze Behavior and Learning of Dart Throw Skill
Language: English
Authors: Bahrami, Somayeh (ORCID 0000-0003-3514-5958), Abdoli, Behrouz (ORCID 0000-0001-6772-2428), Farsi, Alireza (ORCID 0000-0002-2086-6632), Aghdaei, Mahin (ORCID 0000-0002-5933-7201), Simpson, Thomas (ORCID 0000-0002-1229-3694)
Source: Journal of Motor Learning and Development. Dec 2022 10(3):469-484.
Availability: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jmld/jmld-overview.xml
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Visual Stimuli, Attention, Psychomotor Skills, Eye Movements, Novices, Skill Development, Adults
DOI: 10.1123/jmld.2022-0043
ISSN: 2325-3193
2325-3215
Abstract: Research has shown that large visual illusions and an external focus of attention can improve novice's motor learning. However, the combined effects of these approaches and the underlying mechanisms have yet to be studied. Therefore, the present study examined the effects of a large visual illusion and an external focus on the learning of a dart throwing task in novices and measured the perceptual mechanisms underpinning learning using quiet eye. Forty novice participants were randomly divided into four groups: large visual illusion, external focus of attention, combined large visual illusion and external focus of attention, and control group. The study consisted of a pretest, a practice phase, an immediate retention test, a 24-hr retention test, and a transfer test. Results revealed that all groups increased throwing accuracy and quiet eye duration from pretest to immediate retention. In the immediate retention, 24-hr retention, and transfer test, large visual illusion had greater accuracy and longer quiet eye duration than the control group. In addition, there were no significant differences between the visual illusion and external focus groups for throwing accuracy and quiet eye duration. The findings suggest that combining large visual illusion and external focus can independently improve motor learning but combining these manipulations does not have additive benefits.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1373419
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFBAy6QdWFa3PvrVxXP8yX4AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNXDoJkdKK8AHCzQ7gIBEICBm65j05TchgIcIBorZqQUJ--UkVDI8QRgbX2-W8ImSs6IEFG9qQ3berWSX3wdOP6wBOS5S2PL6voaq3fQiF718e7rttxogSXTTrnirZ1v0w5GiXa3lmpjf_65feS9Xqe-1m5QBAgfn8AJwfh9pSmb7qUqrlI9_rqIoaJ1WQGrd49hVpqmq71t4VG5b216G6iXIWl34gVPeCAaTRof
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0161282234;[fqbl]01dec.22;2023Jan16.05:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161282234-1">The Effect of Large Visual Illusion and External Focus of Attention on Gaze Behavior and Learning of Dart Throw Skill </title> <p>Research has shown that large visual illusions and an external focus of attention can improve novice's motor learning. However, the combined effects of these approaches and the underlying mechanisms have yet to be studied. Therefore, the present study examined the effects of a large visual illusion and an external focus on the learning of a dart throwing task in novices and measured the perceptual mechanisms underpinning learning using quiet eye. Forty novice participants were randomly divided into four groups: large visual illusion, external focus of attention, combined large visual illusion and external focus of attention, and control group. The study consisted of a pretest, a practice phase, an immediate retention test, a 24-hr retention test, and a transfer test. Results revealed that all groups increased throwing accuracy and quiet eye duration from pretest to immediate retention. In the immediate retention, 24-hr retention, and transfer test, large visual illusion had greater accuracy and longer quiet eye duration than the control group. In addition, there were no significant differences between the visual illusion and external focus groups for throwing accuracy and quiet eye duration. The findings suggest that combining large visual illusion and external focus can independently improve motor learning but combining these manipulations does not have additive benefits.</p> <p>Keywords: OPTIMAL theory; Ebbinghaus illusion; quiet eye</p> <p>The OPTIMAL (Optimizing Performance through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning) theory of motor learning posits that enhanced expectancies, autonomy support, and an external focus of attention are key motivational and attentional factors for effective motor performance and learning ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref1">65</reflink>]). More specifically, these motivational and attentional factors make independent and interactive contributions to effective motor performance and learning by priming and optimizing the motor system through efficient goal–action coupling ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref5">65</reflink>]). In motor learning research, expectations for success have been enhanced using various manipulations (for review, see [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>]), including manipulations when increase perceptions of success by reducing perceived task difficulty using optical/visual illusions (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref7">35</reflink>]). For example, previous studies have used the Ebbinghaus illusions to alter the perceived size of a central target through the manipulation of surrounding inducers. Large inducers result in central targets appearing perceptually smaller while small inducers make central targets appear larger ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref9">45</reflink>]; see Figure 1).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 —Ebbinghaus illusion used to increase perceived target size.</p> <p>Research on golf putting has found that visual illusions that make targets appear perceptually larger, increased putting accuracy compared perceptually smaller targets ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref11">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref12">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref13">60</reflink>]). Moreover, visual illusions that increased perceived central target size have improved self-efficacy and perceived target size in golf putting, suggesting that implicit perceptual manipulations are effective in enhancing a learner's expectations for task success ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref14">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref16">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref17">35</reflink>]). According to the OPTIMAL theory, conditions which enhance expectancies positively influence performance through efficient goal–action coupling ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref18">65</reflink>]) and a reduction in a detrimental self-related focused attention ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]). That is, in addition to its motivational role, visual illusions could also indirectly promote or clarify an external focus of attention ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref20">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref21">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref23">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref24">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref25">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>Contrary to these findings, Cañal-Bruland et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]) revealed that a small visual illusion improved marble shooting performance from pretest to posttest, whereas the large visual illusion group did not show any performance improvements. However no between-group differences where observed ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]). Additionally, Bahmani et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]) examined the effects of visual illusions on highly skilled rifle and pistol shooters. They found that large perceptual targets improved shooting accuracy and confidence compared to small perceptual targets immediately after practice, however no learning effects were observed. Moreover, Maquestiaux et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref29">28</reflink>]) found that the Ebbinghaus visual illusion had no impact on novice golf-putting performance. These studies suggest that enhancing expectancies via implicit manipulations for success may not be effective for improving motor performance and learning highlighting the need for further research.</p> <p>In addition to enhancing expectancies, verbal instruction and feedback which promotes an external focus of attention (i.e., a focus on the intended movement outcome or effect) has consistently demonstrated to augment motor performance and learning compared to an internal focus (i.e., on body movements) and no specific attentional focus (for reviews, see [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref30">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref31">63</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref32">65</reflink>]). The OPTIMAL theory highlights that external focus improves movement efficiency (e.g., muscle activity; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref33">38</reflink>]) and movement effectiveness (e.g., throwing accuracy; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref34">24</reflink>]) by promoting automatic, unconscious and reflexive motor control; and by reducing attentional demands allowing the learner to harness the self-organizing tendencies of the motor system ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref37">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref38">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref39">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>While the benefits of combining enhanced expectancies and an external focus have been demonstrated (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref40">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref41">65</reflink>]), only Marchant et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref42">29</reflink>]) have examined the potential combined effects of an external focus under illusory manipulations. They found positive independent effects of both an external focus of attention and a large visual illusion on golf putting performance, however combining OPTIMAL factors did not produce additive motor learning benefits contrasting OPTIMAL theory predictions and some previous research ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref43">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref44">65</reflink>]). Moreover, Marchant et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref45">29</reflink>]) failed to capture how the visual context (i.e., illusion) interacts with instruction in terms of visual processing despite visual context impacting perceptual and motor planning processes ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref46">62</reflink>]). Specifically, Wood and colleagues explored the mechanisms underpinning the Ebbinghaus illusion during golf-putting performance using the planning control model ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>]). The authors found that the Ebbinghaus illusion biased perceptual judgments of the target and subsequent performance was influenced through altered motor planning process as evidenced through different quiet eye duration (QED)—an objective measure of motor planning in aiming tasks ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref49">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref50">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref51">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref52">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref53">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>The quiet eye has been defined as the final fixation prior to movement execution and reflects a period of crucial cognitive processing where relevant cues (e.g., target related information) are organized to optimize motor responses (i.e., motor planning processes; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref54">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref55">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref56">59</reflink>]). Specifically, the quiet eye occurs when the final fixation on a target exceeds 100 ms and remains within 3° of the visuomotor workspace (i.e., the intended visual task goal; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref57">55</reflink>]). Therefore, the quiet eye can be conceptualized as an objective measure of motor planning processes in far aiming tasks—like dart throwing—([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref58">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>]) where longer QED have been associated with more effective preprogramming of critical parameters for superior task performance ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref60">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref61">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref62">42</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref63">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref64">47</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref65">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, despite the benefits of a longer quiet eye and an external focus, research is limited in understanding whether performance advantages are mediated by covert (mental) or overt (visual) attention. For example, Land et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref66">21</reflink>]) reported that external focus benefits where not mediated by the online use of vision in a golf putting task, but instead, the clarity and relevance of external focused instructions may have greatly contributed to effective goal–action coupling (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref67">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref68">46</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref69">65</reflink>]). However, an external focus of attention has been shown to prolong QED ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref70">67</reflink>]), where an external focus may mediate the benefits of a longer QED ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref71">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref72">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref73">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref74">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref75">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref76">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref77">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>Contrastingly, visual illusion, which enhances expectancies for success, led to longer QED and more accurate golf putting performance potentially through clarifying an external focus on task goals ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref78">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref79">62</reflink>]). Yet, Razeghi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref80">41</reflink>]) found that children with autism spectrum disorders produced more accurate golf putting under large visual illusion as compared to a control group but there were no significant differences in QED. Finally, Marchant et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref81">29</reflink>]) found that an external focus and large visual illusion improved motor performance independently but did not result in additive effects. These results suggest that any benefit of an external focus may still be informed by perceptual information however the authors did not record perceptual measures (i.e., QED). Nevertheless, previous research has demonstrated that the pairing of two OPTIMAL factors produced greater learning benefits suggesting that an external focus and enhanced expectancies assist learning through at least (partially) different pathways ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref82">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref83">66</reflink>]). Therefore, examining the potential independent and additive effects of an external focus and enhanced expectancies, while recoding perceptual measures to understand the underlying mechanisms of each OPTIMAL factor, is an important avenue for future research.</p> <p>Although the effect of attentional instructions and visual illusions has been studied on gaze behavior separately, there is no research to-date examining the combined effects of these variables. Therefore, the present study aimed to explore the combined effects of a large visual illusion and external focus of attention on the learning of a dart throwing task and QED in novices. Based on previous studies, it was hypothesized that an external focus of attention and a large visual illusion would independently improve motor learning and produce longer QED as compared to the absence ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref84">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref85">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref87">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref88">63</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref89">65</reflink>]). Moreover, we examined the potential positive additive effects of each factor (external focus and enhanced expectancies in the form of a large visual illusion) on motor performance and learning. In line with OPTIMAL theory predictions and previous research it was hypothesized that combining an external focus and large visual illusion would "double" the learning advantage and result in a longer QED as compared to each condition independently ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref90">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref91">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref92">41</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref93">65</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161282234-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161282234-3">Participants</hd> <p>Using G-power software (version 3.1; [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref94">11</reflink>]), a sample size of 36 participants was identified based on large effect size (<emph>f</emph> = 0.25), an alpha level of.05, and a power value of 0.80 (derived from [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref95">30</reflink>]). In total, 40 novice participants (32 females, eight males) aged 18–40 years were recruited for the study. Participants were randomly assigned to four groups: (a) large visual illusion (LVI; age: <emph>M</emph> = 26.00 ± 7.31), (b) external focus of attention (EFA; age: <emph>M</emph> = 24.60 ± 4.00), (c) combined large visual illusion and external focus of attention (LVI-EFA; age: <emph>M</emph> = 26.30 ± 6.48), and (d) control (C; age: <emph>M</emph> = 26.10 ± 8.06). Prior to participation, all participants provided informed consent and declared that they were free from any neurological, psychological, motor, or vision impairments. All participants were right-handed, which was determined by the hand they threw the dart with. All procedures were approved by the institutional review board of Shahid Beheshti University.</p> <hd id="AN0161282234-4">Task and Apparatus</hd> <p>A standard size dart board (diameter = 453 ± 3 mm) and dart (weight = 22 g) were used. The bull's eye was at a height of 1.73 m, and the throwing distance was 2.37 m. The bull's eye was surrounded by nine concentric circles. If the dart hit the bull's eye, 10 points were awarded by the experimenter in situ. Nine points were given for hitting the next circle, and so forth. If a dart hit a line separating two zones, the higher score was awarded. Throws that missed the target were awarded 0 points ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref96">66</reflink>]). All throws were recorded, and the recordings were later used to determine the exact score if there was uncertainty during the testing session.</p> <hd id="AN0161282234-5">Eye Movement Apparatus</hd> <p>A 120-Hz eye-tracking system (Pupil Labs) was used to measure gaze behaviors during dart throwing. Gaze behavior was recorded by two eye cameras (200 Hz) and a single world camera (60 Hz) at 720 × 1,280 resolution. A 5-point calibration was completed by asking participants to direct their gaze to the target surface (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref97">12</reflink>, 3, 6, 9 O'clock and center positions) whilst in their throwing position before each block ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref98">2</reflink>]). The calibration procedure was repeated as required. Gaze data from the eye tracker were recorded by Pupil capture software and analyzed by Pupil Player software (Pupil Labs). This allowed for the gaze behavior to be analyzed on a frame by frame basis to ensure that the critical movement components were analyzed. A side mobile camera (Samsung, 60 Hz at 1,920 × 1,080 resolution) was positioned 5 m on the right sagittal plane of the participants to record hand movements during each throw. The eye tracking and side cameras were synchronized with a laser light prior to the performance of each trial. The videos were later uploaded into Kinovea 0.8.15 video analysis software (https://<ulink href="http://www.kinovea.org/">www.kinovea.org/</ulink>). This method allowed for the accurate synchronization of gaze and motor data to calculate the QED ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref99">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref100">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref101">54</reflink>]). QED for the throw, like other dart throwing research ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref102">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref103">51</reflink>]), was calculated as the duration of final fixation on the circular targets before the extension of the throwing arm for dart release. This fixation point was within a three visual angle threshold for a minimum duration of 100 ms. QED was calculated as the duration of time between the onset of quiet eye (before extension of throwing arm) and the offset of quiet eye (when the fixation deviated off the target).</p> <hd id="AN0161282234-6">Procedures</hd> <p>Following informed consent, participants were instructed on the ideal way of performing the dart throw and were then randomly assigned to four groups: large visual illusion, external focus of attention, combined large visual illusion and external focus of attention, and control group (i.e., no visual illusion or external focus of attention). No attentional focus instructions were provided during this initial instruction. Following this, participants completed six familiarization trials without scoring to ensure they understood what was being asked. Participants were then fitted with eye-tracker glasses, and the device settings were adjusted, such as adjusting the angles of eye cameras, sample rate, and calibration. Next, participants performed a pretest which consisted of 12 trials without any instruction or feedback followed by the practice phase which began 24 hr later. The practice phase was spaced over 3 days, were on each day participants completed 10 blocks of 10 practice trials with 1-min rest periods between blocks. Darts were removed from the board every three trials. In the groups that included an external focus, participants were asked to "focus on the target and the path of the dart to the target." These instructions were given prior to each 10-trial block during the practice phase. In the illusion groups participants performed under the Ebbinghaus illusion (with the bull's eye surrounded by 11 small inducers (circles) so the target can be perceived as larger than its actual size). In the control group, participants received no attentional focus instructions and no visual illusion. After the last practice trial, an immediate retention test was administered, which was performed in the same manner as the pretest. One day later, 24-hr retention and transfer tests were performed, each consisting of 12 trials with no visual illusion and attentional instructions. Gaze behavior was recorded on the pretest, immediate retention, 24-hr retention, and transfer tests using the eye tracker (see Figure 2).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2 —Experimental setup.</p> <hd id="AN0161282234-7">Statistical Analysis</hd> <p>To analyze throwing accuracy a 2 (external focus/no external focus) × 2 (illusion/no illusion) × 7 (time) and a 2 (external focus/no external focus) × 2 (illusion/no illusion) × 4 (time; pre, immediate retention, 24-hr retention, transfer tests) mixed factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures on the final factor were used to examine throwing accuracy and QED respectively. Bonferroni post hoc analysis was applied if significance was observed. Alpha level was set at.05 for all analyses. Normality and homogeneity of variances were examined by the Shapiro–Wilk and Levin tests, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0161282234-8">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161282234-9">Throwing Accuracy</hd> <p>The 2 (external focus/no external focus) × 2 (illusion/no illusion) × 7 (time) revealed a significant effect of time, <emph>F</emph>(4.256, 153.201) = 53.586, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>.598</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> . Pairwise comparisons revealed that accuracy improved in all time points after pretest (<emph>p</emph>s ≤.001). Additionally, performance was better in the immediate retention test compared to practice Day 1 (<emph>p</emph> =.024) and 3 (<emph>p</emph> =.023) respectively.</p> <p>Moreover, there was a significant Illusion × Time interaction, <emph>F</emph>(4.256, 153.201) = 2.662, <emph>p</emph> =.032, <ephtml> <math overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>.069</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> , where accuracy was better in the visual illusion conditions during practice Day 1 (<emph>p</emph> =.005), practice Day 2 (<emph>p</emph> =.017), practice Day 3 (<emph>p</emph> =.003), immediate retention test (<emph>p</emph> =.021), 24-hr delayed retention test (<emph>p</emph> =.043), and transfer test (<emph>p</emph> =.001).</p> <p>There was a significant effect for attentional focus where throwing accuracy was better under external focus as compared to no external focus conditions, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref104">1</reflink>, 36) = 9.067, <emph>p</emph> =.005, <ephtml> <math overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>.201</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> . Furthermore, there was a significant attentional focus × illusion interaction indicating that throwing accuracy was better when under external focus and no illusion conditions, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref105">1</reflink>, 36) = 10.686, <emph>p</emph> =.002, <ephtml> <math overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>.229</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> (see Figure 3).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3 —Mean throwing accuracy scores over the duration of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0161282234-10">Quiet Eye Duration</hd> <p>The 2 (external focus/no external focus) × 2 (illusion/no illusion) × 4 (time; pre, immediate retention, 24-hr retention, transfer tests) revealed a significant Focus × Illusion × Time interaction effect, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref106">3</reflink>, 108) = 3.080, <emph>p</emph> =.031, <ephtml> <math overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>.079</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> . Pairwise comparisons indicated that QED was longer in the 24-hr retention test, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref107">1</reflink>, 36) = 21.317, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>.372</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> , and transfer test, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref108">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref109">36</reflink>) = 23.727, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mn>.397</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ) when both an external focus and large visual illusion were present as compared to an external focus with no illusion present (see Figure 4).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4 —Mean quiet eye duration (ms) during dart throwing performance.</p> <hd id="AN0161282234-11">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study aimed to explore the combined effects of a large visual illusion and external focus of attention on the learning of a dart throwing task and QED in novices. It was hypothesized that a large visual illusion and external focus of attention would improve dart throwing performance and prolong the QED as compared to a control group. Additionally, it was predicted that the combination of a large visual illusion and an external focus of attention would produce more accurate dart throws and longer QED compared to each condition independently ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref110">65</reflink>]). The findings provide mixed support for our hypothesis.</p> <p>First, in line with previous research, throwing accuracy was greater when participants were exposed to a large visual illusion (i.e., when the target was surrounded by smaller inducers) compared to no visual illusion ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref111">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref112">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref113">60</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref114">68</reflink>]). Moreover, these findings support OPTIMAL theory predictions as enhancing expectancies for success via visual illusions facilitated motor performance and learning through more efficient goal–action coupling ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref115">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref116">65</reflink>]). Wulf and Lewthwaite ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref117">65</reflink>]) explain that enhanced expectancies play a dual role in effective goal–action coupling and subsequent motor learning where learners with higher performance expectancies are better able to maintain a focus on task goals and have a reduced self-focus through the dopaminergic response associated with reward or expected success (i.e., expecting to hit or hitting the bull's eye; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref118">48</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref119">49</reflink>]). Additionally, the longer QED observed in the large visual illusion group suggests that the implicit manipulation positively influenced visuomotor control which allowed for a greater focus on the task-goal supporting a previous study by Wood et al. ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref120">62</reflink>]). Therefore, the present study adds further support that conditions that enhance expectancies for success, through visual illusions, can facilitate efficient goal–action coupling for effective motor performance and learning.</p> <p>However, the present findings were inconsistent with some studies ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref121">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref122">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref123">28</reflink>]). For example, Cañal-Bruland et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref124">6</reflink>]) revealed that the small visual illusion group improved performance from pretest to posttest, whereas large visual illusion group did not show any improvements on marble shooting. Potentially, the errors for learners in the large illusion condition were smaller than in the small illusion and control conditions in the pretest. Thus, there may have been little opportunity for improvement in the large illusion condition suggesting that implicit manipulations of success should provide sufficient challenge for learning to occur ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref125">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref126">65</reflink>]). Additionally, Bahmani et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref127">4</reflink>]) found that highly skilled rifle and pistol shooters in large perceptual targets group had more accurate performance and more confidence than small perceptual targets group immediately after practice. However, in the retention test with no visual illusions, there were no differences between the two groups further suggesting that visual illusions require adequate challenge for learning to occur and enhancing expectancies alone (i.e., those that enhance perceptions of success) is not sufficient for motor learning ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref128">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition to the benefits of the implicit success manipulation (i.e., visual illusion) we found that an external focus of attention (onto the bull's eye and flight of the dart), lead to significantly greater throwing accuracy than as compared to no external focus conditions in line with previous finding (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref129">9</reflink>]). According to the OPTIMAL theory, an external focus of attention on the intended movement outcome or effect is predicted to improve movement efficiency movement efficiency (e.g., muscle activity; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref130">38</reflink>]) and movement effectiveness (e.g., throwing accuracy; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref131">24</reflink>]) by promoting automatic, unconscious and reflexive motor control; and by reducing attentional demands allowing the learner to harness the self-organizing tendencies of the motor system ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref132">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref133">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref134">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref135">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref136">65</reflink>]). The present findings add further evidence that an external focus is beneficial for novice motor learning.</p> <p>However, the external focus benefit was not retained in the 24-hr retention and transfer tests. One potential explanation for this finding is that without explicit attentional focus instruction 24 hr after practice, novice participants may have adopted an internal focus of attention or no specific focus which does not facilitate motor learning ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref137">39</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref138">65</reflink>]). However, no manipulation check was performed to confirm adherence to an external focus although longer QED in the immediate retention, 24-hr retention and transfer tests suggests that participants where effective in maintaining an overt external focus of attention of task-relevant cues ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref139">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref140">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref141">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref142">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref143">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref144">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref145">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref146">65</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref147">67</reflink>]). While the participants' covert attention cannot be assumed, the findings do not support OPTIMAL theory predictions that improved motor performance resulting from an external focus leads to greater motor learning. Future research should aim to measure both covert and overt attention orientations to better understand the mechanisms underpinning an external focus of attention ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref148">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>The final hypothesis of the study predicted that combining a large visual illusion—which enhanced expectancies for success—and an external focus—would have additive motor learning benefits ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref149">65</reflink>]). However, combining a large visual illusion and external focus did not yield greater learning advantages than each factor alone, contrasting previous research suggesting that each OPTIMAL factor assists learning through (partially) independent mechanisms ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref150">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref151">64</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref152">66</reflink>]). Nevertheless, the findings support Marchant et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref153">29</reflink>]) who also failed to find additive learning effects when a large visual illusion and external focus were combined. The present findings suggest that an external focus and enhanced expectancies (i.e., large visual illusion) share common mechanisms with neither adding additional value to the other's effect. Indeed, OPTIMAL theory posits that attentional (i.e., external focus) and motivational (i.e., visual illusion to enhance expectancies) factors are mediated through a common goal–action coupling mechanism ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref154">65</reflink>]). For example, enhanced expectancies can protect against a task-irrelevant focus (i.e., self-referential processing) and strengthen a focus on the task goal (i.e., an external focus) by increasing a learner's assessment of their action capabilities ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref155">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref156">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref157">65</reflink>]). Additionally, an external focus further protects against self-referential processing by facilitating the efficient switching between the default mode network to task-relevant networks required for effective motor performance ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref158">31</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref159">65</reflink>]). Indeed, QED was significantly longer in the 24-hr retention and transfer tests when the large visual illusion and external focus were present suggesting that combining implicit success manipulations and explicit external focus instructions was effective for increasing a focus on task-goal (i.e., hitting the bull's eye; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref160">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref161">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref162">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref163">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref164">57</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref165">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref166">59</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref167">65</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref168">67</reflink>]). Yet, the lack of associated performance improvements suggests that such conditions did not further facilitate effective goal–action coupling beyond an implicit success manipulation or external focus alone contradicting the OPTIMAL theory ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref169">65</reflink>]). Taken together, the findings suggest that each manipulation is equally effective at coupling goals with intended actions and that motivational (i.e., enhanced expectancies) and attentional (i.e., external focus) interventions may not necessarily be separate mechanisms ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref170">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref171">65</reflink>]). While the findings provide support for the prediction that motor learning is mediated through common mechanisms ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref172">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref173">65</reflink>]), the results contrast previous research that an external focus and enhanced expectancies have additive effects on learning ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref174">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref175">64</reflink>]). Future research should continue to explore the perceptual and motor learning effects enhanced expectancies in conjunction with an external focus of attention (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref176">66</reflink>]) to further investigate the potentially contradicting findings with OPTIMAL theory research and further understand the mechanisms underpinning motor learning.</p> <p>The present study is not without its limitations. For example, no motivational measures were recorded (e.g., self-efficacy) therefore it is unclear whether the learning advantages associated with the large visual illusion were driven primarily by perceptual or motivational mechanisms. Future research should consider combining perceptual and motivational measurements to better test predictions of the OPTIMAL theory ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref177">65</reflink>]). Additionally, future studies should increase the sample size; it is possible that the small sample size limited the statistical power whereby a larger sample size may have highlighted clear differences for the combination group. Finally, the authors acknowledge that measuring accuracy via radial error may provide a more precise assessment of precision as compared to a ring-scoring system ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref178">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>From a practical perspective, the present findings suggest that motor skill learning involving a target (e.g., dart throwing) might take advantage of visual illusions that enhance expectations for success (i.e., make targets appear larger). Additionally, practitioners should emphasize an external focus on the intended movement (e.g., target) to improve motor performance and learning. Overall, it appears that applying both external focus instructions and manipulating perceptions of success can improve perceptual and motor learning. Coaches, trainers, and teachers are recommended to use these strategies to improve motor skills in novices. Future research should continue determine the generalizability of these findings to different tasks (e.g., complex motor skills) and populations (e.g., children, experienced athletes).</p> <p>Bahrami https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3514-5958</p> <p>Farsi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2086-6632</p> <p>Aghdaei https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5933-7201</p> <p>Simpson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1229-3694</p> <p>Abdoli (b-abdoli@sbu.ac.ir) is corresponding author, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6772-2428</p> <ref id="AN0161282234-12"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> An, J., Chua, L.K., & Wulf, G. (2021). Optimising golf putting. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19 (5), 882–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2020.185482310.1080/1612197X.2020.1854823</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref90" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Asadi, A., Aiken, C.A., Heidari, S., & Kochackpour, F. (2021). The effect of attentional instructions during modeling on gaze behavior and throwing accuracy in 7 to 10 year-old children. Human Movement Science, 78, 102825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2021.10282510.1016/j.humov.2021.102825</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref6" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bacelar, M.F., Parma, J.O., Murrah, W.M., & Miller, M.W. (2022). Meta-analyzing enhanced expectancies on motor learning: Positive effects but methodological concerns. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2022.204283910.1080/1750984X.2022.2042839</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref121" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bahmani, M., Diekfuss, J.A., Rostami, R., Ataee, N., & Ghadiri, F. (2018). Visual illusions affect motor performance, but not learning in highly skilled shooters. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 6 (2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2017-001110.1123/jmld.2017-0011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref10" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bahmani, M., Wulf, G., Ghadiri, F., Karimi, S., & Lewthwaite, R. (2017). Enhancing performance expectancies through visual illusions facilitates motor learning in children. Human Movement Science, 55, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2017.07.00110.1016/j.humov.2017.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref26" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cañal-Bruland, R., van der Meer, Y., & Moerman, J. (2016). Can visual illusions be used to facilitate sport skill learning?Journal of Motor Behavior, 48 (5), 285–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2015.111391610.1080/00222895.2015.1113916</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref71" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Causer, J., Holmes, P.S., & Williams, A.M. (2011). Quiet eye training in a visuomotor control task. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43 (6), 1042–1049. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182035de610.1249/MSS.0b013e3182035de6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref11" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chauvel, G., Wulf, G., & Maquestiaux, F. (2015). Visual illusions can facilitate sport skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22 (3), 717–721. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0744-910.3758/s13423-014-0744-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref30" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chua, L.K., Jimenez-Diaz, J., Lewthwaite, R., Kim, T., & Wulf, G. (2021). Superiority of external attentional focus for motor performance and learning: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 147 (6), 618–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul000033510.1037/bul0000335</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Fockert, J.W., & Wu, S. (2009). High working memory load leads to more Ebbinghaus illusion. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21 (7), 961–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954144080268930210.1080/09541440802689302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF0319314610.3758/BF03193146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glover, S. (2002). Visual illusions affect planning but not control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (7), 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01920-410.1016/S1364-6613(02)01920-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glover, S. (2004). Separate visual representations in the planning and control of action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27 (1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glover, S.R., & Dixon, P. (2001). Dynamic illusion effects in a reaching task: Evidence for separate visual representations in the planning and control of reaching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27 (3), 560–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.3.560</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzalez, C.C., Causer, J., Miall, R.C., Grey, M.J., Humphreys, G., & Williams, A.M. (2017). Identifying the causal mechanisms of the quiet eye. European Journal of Sport Science, 17 (1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2015.107559510.1080/17461391.2015.1075595</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruber, M.J., Ritchey, M., Wang, S.F., Doss, M.K., & Ranganath, C. (2016). Post-learning hippocampal dynamics promote preferential retention of rewarding events. Neuron, 89 (5), 1110–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.01.01710.1016/j.neuron.2016.01.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guadagnoli, M.A., & Lee, T.D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36 (2), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-22410.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hancock, G.R., Butler, M.S., & Fischman, M.G. (1995). On the problem of two-dimensional error scores: Measures and analyses of accuracy, bias, and consistency. Journal of Motor Behavior, 27 (3), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1995.994171410.1080/00222895.1995.9941714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hodges, N.J., & Lohse, K.R. (2022). An extended challenge-based framework for practice design in sports coaching. Journal of Sports Sciences, 40 (7), 754–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2021.201591710.1080/02640414.2021.2015917</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kal, E.C., Van der Kamp, J., & Houdijk, H. (2013). External attentional focus enhances movement automatization: A comprehensive test of the constrained action hypothesis. Human Movement Science, 32 (4), 527–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2013.04.00110.1016/j.humov.2013.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Land, W.M., Tenenbaum, G., Ward, P., & Marquardt, C. (2013). Examination of visual information as a mediator of external focus benefits. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35 (3). https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.35.3.25010.1123/jsep.35.3.250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lappin, J.M., Reeves, S.J., Mehta, M.A., Egerton, A., Coulson, M., & Grasby, P.M. (2009). Dopamine release in the human striatum: Motor and cognitive tasks revisited. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 29 (3), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.2008.14610.1038/jcbfm.2008.146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linkenauger, S.A., Witt, J.K., Stefanucci, J.K., Bakdash, J.Z., & Proffitt, D.R. (2009). The effects of handedness and reachability on perceived distance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35 (6), 1649–1660. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016875</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lohse, K.R., Jones, M., Healy, A.F., & Sherwood, D.E. (2014). The role of attention in motor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143 (2), 930–948. https://doi.org/10.1037/a003281710.1037/a0032817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lohse, K.R., Sherwood, D.E., & Healy, A.F. (2010). How changing the focus of attention affects performance, kinematics, and electromyography in dart throwing. Human Movement Science, 29 (4), 542–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2010.05.00110.1016/j.humov.2010.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mann, D.T., Coombes, S.A., Mousseau, M.B., & Janelle, C.M. (2011). Quiet eye and the Bereitschaftspotential: Visuomotor mechanisms of expert motor performance. Cognitive Processing, 12 (3), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-011-0398-810.1007/s10339-011-0398-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mann, D.T., Williams, A.M., Ward, P., & Janelle, C.M. (2007). Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29 (4), 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.29.4.45710.1123/jsep.29.4.457</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maquestiaux, F., Arexis, M., Chauvel, G., Ladoy, J., Boyer, P., & Mazerolle, M. (2021). Ebbinghaus visual illusion: No robust influence on novice golf-putting performance. Psychological Research, 85 (3), 1156–1166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01298-010.1007/s00426-020-01298-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marchant, D.C., Carnegie, E., Wood, G., & Ellison, P. (2019). Influence of visual illusion and attentional focusing instruction in motor performance. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17 (6), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2018.144116510.1080/1612197X.2018.1441165</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marchant, D.C., Griffiths, G., Partridge, J.A., Belsley, L., & Porter, J.M. (2018). The influence of external focus instruction characteristics on children's motor performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 89 (4), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2018.151207510.1080/02701367.2018.1512075</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKay, B., Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Nordin, A. (2015). The self: Your own worst enemy? A test of the self-invoking trigger hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68 (9), 1910–1919. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.99776510.1080/17470218.2014.997765</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, L.J., Vine, S.J., Cooke, A., Ring, C., & Wilson, M.R. (2012). Quiet eye training expedites motor learning and aids performance under heightened anxiety: The roles of response programming and external attention. Psychophysiology, 49 (7), 1005–1015. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01379.x10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01379.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Müller H., & Loosch, E. (1999). Functional variability and an equifinal path of movement during targeted throwing. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 36 (3), 103–126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nibbeling, N., Oudejans, R.R., & Daanen, H.A. (2012). Effects of anxiety, a cognitive secondary task, and expertise on gaze behavior and performance in a far aiming task. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13 (4), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.02.00210.1016/j.psychsport.2012.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palmer, K., Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2016). Enhanced expectancies facilitate golf putting. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.08.00910.1016/j.psychsport.2015.08.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pascua, L.A., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2015). Additive benefits of external focus and enhanced performance expectancy for motor learning. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33 (1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.92269310.1080/02640414.2014.922693</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petranek, L.J., Bolter, N.D., & Bell, K. (2019). Attentional focus and feedback frequency among first graders in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38 (3), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0080</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter, J.M., Anton, P.M., & Wu, W.F. (2012). Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention enhances standing long jump performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26 (9), 2389–2393. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f275c10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f275c</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter, J.M., Nolan, R.P., Ostrowski, E.J., & Wulf, G. (2010). Directing attention externally enhances agility performance: A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the efficacy of using verbal instructions to focus attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.0021610.3389/fpsyg.2010.00216</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Querfurth, S., Schücker, L., De Lussanet, M.H., & Zentgraf, K. (2016). An internal focus leads to longer quiet eye durations in novice dart players. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 633. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.0063310.3389/fpsyg.2016.00633</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Razeghi, R., Arsham, S., Movahedi, A., & Sammaknejad, N. (2020). The effect of visual illusion on performance and quiet eye in autistic children. Early Child Development and Care, 192 (5), 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.180226010.1080/03004430.2020.1802260</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rienhoff, R., Baker, J., Fischer, L., Strauss, B., & Schorer, J. (2012). Field of vision influences sensory-motor control of skilled and less-skilled dart players. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 11 (3), 542–550.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rienhoff, R., Fischer, L., Strauss, B., Baker, J., & Schorer, J. (2015). Focus of attention influences quiet-eye behavior: An exploratory investigation of different skill levels in female basketball players. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4 (1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy000003110.1037/spy0000031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rienhoff, R., Hopwood, M., Fischer, L., Strauss, B., Baker, J., & Schorer, J. (2013). Transfer of motor and perceptual skills from basketball to darts. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 593. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.0059310.3389/fpsyg.2013.00593</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, B., Harris, M.G., & Yates, T.A. (2005). The roles of inducer size and distance in the Ebbinghaus illusion (Titchener circles). Perception, 34 (7), 847–856. https://doi.org/10.1068/p527310.1068/p5273</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, R., Porter, J., & Campbell, O. (2014). An external skill focus is necessary to enhance performance. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 2 (2), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2014-003810.1123/jmld.2014-0038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sammy, N., Anstiss, P.A., Moore, L.J., Freeman, P., Wilson, M.R., & Vine, S.J. (2017). The effects of arousal reappraisal on stress responses, performance and attention. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 30 (6), 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2017.133095210.1080/10615806.2017.1330952</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schultz, W. (2010). Dopamine signals for reward value and risk: Basic and recent data. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-6-2410.1186/1744-9081-6-24</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schultz, W. (2013). Updating dopamine reward signals. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23 (2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.01210.1016/j.conb.2012.11.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, T., Cronin, L., Ellison, P., Carnegie, E., & Marchant, D. (2020). A test of optimal theory on young adolescents' standing long jump performance and motivation. Human Movement Science, 72, 102651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2020.10265110.1016/j.humov.2020.102651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, T., Ellison, P., Marchant, D., & Carnegie, E. (2022). Effects of attentional strategies on novice dart throwing, quiet eye duration and pupillary responses. Journal of Motor Behavior, 54 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2020.186968110.1080/00222895.2020.1869681</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevens, D., Anderson, D.I., O'Dwyer, N.J., & Williams, A.M. (2012). Does self-efficacy mediate transfer effects in the learning of easy and difficult motor skills?Consciousness and Cognition, 21 (3), 1122–1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.03.01410.1016/j.concog.2012.03.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vickers, J.N. (1996). Visual control when aiming at a far target. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22 (2), 342–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.2.342</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vickers, J.N. (2007). Perception, cognition, and decision training: The quiet eye in action. Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vickers, J.N. (2016). The quiet eye. Current Issues in Sport Science, 1, 118. https://doi.org/10.15203/CISS_2016.118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vickers, J.N., Rodrigues, S.T., & Edworthy, G. (2000). Quiet eye and accuracy in the dart throw. International Journal of Sports Vision, 6 (1), 30–36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vine, S.J., Moore, L., & Wilson, M.R. (2011). Quiet eye training facilitates competitive putting performance in elite golfers. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.0000810.3389/fpsyg.2011.00008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, A.M., Singer, R.N., & Frehlich, S.G. (2002). Quiet eye duration, expertise, and task complexity in near and far aiming tasks. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34 (2), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022289020960194110.1080/00222890209601941</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, M.R., & Pearcy, R.C. (2009). Visuomotor control of straight and breaking golf putts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109 (2), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.109.2.555-56210.2466/pms.109.2.555-562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witt, J.K., Linkenauger, S.A., & Proffitt, D.R. (2012). Get me out of this slump! Visual illusions improve sports performance. Psychological Science, 23 (4), 397–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761142881010.1177/0956797611428810</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Witt, J.K., South, S.C., & Sugovic, M. (2014). A perceiver's own abilities influence perception, even when observing others. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21 (2), 384–389. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0505-110.3758/s13423-013-0505-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, G., Vine, S.J., & Wilson, M.R. (2013). The impact of visual illusions on perception, action planning, and motor performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75 (5), 830–834. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0489-y10.3758/s13414-013-0489-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6 (1), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.72372810.1080/1750984X.2012.723728</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Drews, R. (2015). External focus and autonomy support: Two important factors in motor learning have additive benefits. Human Movement Science, 40, 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2014.11.01510.1016/j.humov.2014.11.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23 (5), 1382–1414. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0999-910.3758/s13423-015-0999-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., Cardozo, P., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2018). Triple play: Additive contributions of enhanced expectancies, autonomy support, and external attentional focus to motor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71 (4), 824–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.127620410.1080/17470218.2016.1276204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziv, G., & Lidor, R. (2015). Focusing attention instructions, accuracy, and quiet eye in a self-paced task—An exploratory study. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13 (2), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2014.94694610.1080/1612197X.2014.946946</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziv, G., Ochayon, M., & Lidor, R. (2019). Enhanced or diminished expectancies in golf putting—Which actually affects performance?Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 40, 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.10.00310.1016/j.psychsport.2018.10.003</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Somayeh Bahrami; Behrouz Abdoli; Alireza Farsi; Mahin Aghdaei and Thomas Simpson</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref178"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1373419
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Effect of Large Visual Illusion and External Focus of Attention on Gaze Behavior and Learning of Dart Throw Skill
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bahrami%2C+Somayeh%22">Bahrami, Somayeh</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3514-5958">0000-0003-3514-5958</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abdoli%2C+Behrouz%22">Abdoli, Behrouz</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6772-2428">0000-0001-6772-2428</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Farsi%2C+Alireza%22">Farsi, Alireza</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2086-6632">0000-0002-2086-6632</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Aghdaei%2C+Mahin%22">Aghdaei, Mahin</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5933-7201">0000-0002-5933-7201</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Simpson%2C+Thomas%22">Simpson, Thomas</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1229-3694">0000-0002-1229-3694</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Motor+Learning+and+Development%22"><i>Journal of Motor Learning and Development</i></searchLink>. Dec 2022 10(3):469-484.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jmld/jmld-overview.xml
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Stimuli%22">Visual Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention%22">Attention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychomotor+Skills%22">Psychomotor Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Eye+Movements%22">Eye Movements</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Novices%22">Novices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1123/jmld.2022-0043
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 2325-3193<br />2325-3215
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Research has shown that large visual illusions and an external focus of attention can improve novice's motor learning. However, the combined effects of these approaches and the underlying mechanisms have yet to be studied. Therefore, the present study examined the effects of a large visual illusion and an external focus on the learning of a dart throwing task in novices and measured the perceptual mechanisms underpinning learning using quiet eye. Forty novice participants were randomly divided into four groups: large visual illusion, external focus of attention, combined large visual illusion and external focus of attention, and control group. The study consisted of a pretest, a practice phase, an immediate retention test, a 24-hr retention test, and a transfer test. Results revealed that all groups increased throwing accuracy and quiet eye duration from pretest to immediate retention. In the immediate retention, 24-hr retention, and transfer test, large visual illusion had greater accuracy and longer quiet eye duration than the control group. In addition, there were no significant differences between the visual illusion and external focus groups for throwing accuracy and quiet eye duration. The findings suggest that combining large visual illusion and external focus can independently improve motor learning but combining these manipulations does not have additive benefits.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1373419
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1373419
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1123/jmld.2022-0043
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 469
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Visual Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychomotor Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Eye Movements
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Novices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Effect of Large Visual Illusion and External Focus of Attention on Gaze Behavior and Learning of Dart Throw Skill
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bahrami, Somayeh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abdoli, Behrouz
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Farsi, Alireza
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Aghdaei, Mahin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Simpson, Thomas
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 2325-3193
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2325-3215
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 10
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Motor Learning and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1