CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71Sport Psychology and PerformanceMotor Control and AdaptationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Visual illusions can facilitate sport skill learning

Chauvel, Guillaume, Wulf, Gabriele, Maquestiaux, François·2015·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/s13423-014-0744-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Witt, Linkenauger, and Proffitt (Psychological Science, 23, 397-399, 2012) demonstrated that golf putting performance was enhanced when the hole was surrounded by small circles, making it look larger, relative to when it was surrounded by large circles, making it look smaller. In the present study, we examined whether practicing putting with small or large surrounding circles would have not only immediate effects on performance, but also longer-lasting effects on motor learning. Two groups of nongolfers practiced putting golf balls to a 10.4-cm circle ("hole") from a distance of 2 m. Small or large circles were projected around the hole during the practice phase. Perception of hole size was affected by the size of the surrounding circles. Also, self-efficacy was higher in the group with the perceived larger hole. One day after practice, participants performed the putting task, but without visual illusions (i.e., a retention test). Putting accuracy in retention was greater for the group that had practiced with the perceived larger hole. These findings suggest that the apparently larger target led to the more effective learning outcome.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13423-014-0744-9

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Practicing with a perceived larger hole enhanced both self-efficacy and learning (retention without illusions) compared with a perceived smaller hole.

    “Both self-efficacy and learning (i.e., retention performance without optical illusions) were enhanced in the group that practiced with a perceived larger hole compared with a group that experienced a smaller-looking hole (Figure 2).”

    From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Chauvel, Wulf, and Maquestiaux (2015)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chauvel, G., Wulf, G., & Maquestiaux, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
  • Université de Franche-Comté (FR)
Corresponding author
Chauvel, Guillaume
ORCID
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-10-15
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
717-721
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-014-0744-9
OpenAlex
W2008022157
Cited by
71
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3
FWCI
9.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
optical illusions, golf putting, motor learning, skill acquisition, self-efficacy, learning retention, perceptual cues, sport skill acquisition
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Golf, Humans, Illusions, Learning, Male, Motor Skills, Size Perception, Self Efficacy, Athletic Performance, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review