When Task Seems Easier: The Influence of Illusory Target Size on Hitting Accuracy

The article investigates the influence of subjective beliefs about one's efficiency on the results of sensorimotor activity through experimental studies using size illusions. Sensorimotor learning is a process of increasing the efficiency of activity as it is practised. It involves a two-way relationship between performance expectations and performance outcomes. Performance expectations are subjective beliefs about the likely success of a particular task. Visual illusions are often used to investigate this relationship. Illusorily larger targets are perceived as easier compared to illusorily smaller ones; as a consequence, subjects are more efficient at hitting targets that appear easier to them. However, results that do not fit the model are still observed. The paper proposes an explanation for the inconsistent results by a possible "failure" in a three-level mechanism involving replication of the size illusion, perception of targets as different in difficulty, and changing performance prediction according to difficulty. The paper analyses the design and results of 18 experimental studies conducted from 2012 to 2023 and suggests possible modifications of the experimental paradigms at each of the three levels of the mechanism of the effect of performance prediction on sensorimotor activity.

1. Allakhverdov V.M., Kostina D.I. Menyaetsya li napravlennost' praiminga, esli vmeste s praimom pred"yavlyat' vernyi ili oshibochnyi otvet na druguyu zadachu? [Does the direction of priming change if, along with the prime, a correct or false answer to another task is required?] [Electronic resource]. In Zashchirinskoi O.V., Shaboltas A.V. (eds.), Psikhologiya XXI veka: sistemnyi podkhod i mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniya [Psychology of the 21st century: a systematic approach and interdisciplinary research]: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov uchastnikov mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii molodykh uchenykh. SPb.: Skifiya-Print, 2017. Vol. 2, pp. 67—72. URL: https://psy.spbu.ru/attachments/article/721/Psy_XXI_2017_p2.pdf#page=67 (Accessed 16.05.2024) (In Russ.).
2. Allakhverdov V.M. Soznanie kak paradox [Consciousness as a Paradox]: Eksperimental'naya Psikhologika. SPb.: Izdatel'stvo DNK, 2000. 528 с. (In Russ.).
3. Bandura A. Teoriya sotsial'nogo naucheniya [Social learning theory]. SPb.: Evraziya, 2000. 318 с. (In Russ.).
4. Vilkova K.A. Izmerenie samoreguliruemogo obucheniya: obzor instrumentov [Measuring self-regulated learning: a review of questionnaires]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2020. Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 123—133. DOI:10.17759/jmfp.2020090211 (In Russ.).
5. Gershkovich V.A., Moroshkina N.V., Allakhverdov V.M., Ivanchei I.I., Morozov M.I., Karpinskaya V.Yu., Kuvaldina M.B., Volkov D.N. Vozniknovenie povtoryayushchikhsya oshibok v protsesse sensomotornogo naucheniya i sposoby ikh korrektsii [The occurrence of repeated errors in the process of sensorimotor learning and methods for their correction] [Electronic resource]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Seriya 16. Psikhologiya. Pedagogika [Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Episode 16. Psychology. Pedagogy], 2013, no. 3, pp. 43—54. URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=20245755 (Accessed 16.05.2024) (In Russ.).
6. Karpinskaia V.Yu., Lyakhovetskii V.A. Rol' illyuzii razmera v zadache popadaniya v tsel' [The role of visual illusion in the process of shooting a target] [Electronic resource]. In Pechenkovoi E.V., Falikman M.V. (eds.), Kognitivnaya nauka v Moskve: novye issledovaniya [Cognitive science in Moscow: new research]: Materialy konferentsii. SPb.: Buki-Vedi, Institut prakticheskoi psikhologii i psikhoanaliza, 2017, pp. 122—126. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=32148312 (Accessed 16.05.2024) (In Russ.).
7. Allakhverdov M.V., Chernaya A.S., Allakhverdov V.M., Skott T. Kognitivnyi kontrol' nad izmeneniem irrelevantnykh stimulov [Cognitive Control of Irrelevant Stimulus Changes]. Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine [Modern technologies in medicine], 2019. Vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 63—68. DOI:10.17691/stm2019.11.1.07 (In Russ.).
8. Kulieva A.K., Tikhonov R.V., Ivanchei I.I. Teorii i praktiki izmereniya osoznaniya v eksperimental'nykh kognitivnykh issledovaniyakh [Theory and Practice of Awareness Measurement in Experimental Cognitive Research]. Eksperimental'naya psikhologiya = Experimental Psychology, 2021. Vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 164—181. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2021140409 (In Russ.).
9. Naumenko O.V. Proyavlenie kognitivnogo bessoznatel'nogo pri reshenii vychislitel'nykh zadach. Avtopef. diss. kand. psikhol. nauk [Manifestation of the cognitive unconscious when solving computational problems. Ph. D. (Psychology) Thesis] [Electronic resource]. SPb.: Sankt-Peterburgskii gosudarstvennyi universitet 2010. 22 c. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=19329746 (Accessed 27.05.2024).
10. Filippova M.G. Neosoznavaemaya dvoistvennost' izobrazhenii: eksperimental'nye proyavleniya negativnogo vybora [Unconscious duality of images: experimental manifestations of negative choice] [Electronic resource]. Peterburgskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal [St. Petersburg psychological journal], 2016. Vol. 16, pp. 1—22. URL: https://ppj.spbpo.ru/index.php/psy/article/view/120 (Accessed 16.05.2024) (In Russ.).
11. Shilenkova L.N. Samoeffektivnost' v obrazovatel'nom protsesse (obzor zarubezhnykh issledovanii) [Self-efficacy in the educational process (review of foreign studies)]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2020. Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 69—78. DOI:10.17759/jmfp.2020090306 (In Russ.).
12. Kuldas S., Sargioti A., Norman J.O., Staksrud E. A transactional framework of parenting for children’s Internet use [Electronic resource]: A narrative review of parental self-efficacy, mediation, and awareness of online risks. International Journal of Communication, 2023. Vol. 17, pp. 1717—1736. URL: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/19336 (Accessed 16.05.2024).
13. Arexis M., Maquestiaux F. Visual illusions influence proceduralized sports performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2023. Vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 174—183. DOI:10.3758/s13423-022-02145-6
14. Atkinson J.W. An introduction to motivation. New York: D. van Nostrand, 1964. 335 p.
15. Bandura A. Social learning theory. Vol. 1. Prentice Hall, 1977. 247 p.
16. Cañal-Bruland R., van der Meer Y., Moerman J. Can visual illusions be used to facilitate sport skill learning? Journal of motor behavior, 2016. Vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 285—389. DOI:10.1080/00222895.2015.1113916
17. Chauvel G., Wulf G., Maquestiaux F. Visual illusions can facilitate sport skill learning. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2015. Vol. 22, pp. 717—721. DOI:10.3758/s13423-014-0744-9
18. Brouwer C., Bolderdijk J.-W., Cornelissen G., Kurz T. Communication strategies for moral rebels: How to talk about change in order to inspire self‐efficacy in others. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2022. Vol. 13, no. 5, article ID e781. 9 p. DOI:10.1002/wcc.781
19. Coon V. The perceptual motor-effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion on golf putting [Electronic resource]: A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science. Arizona State University, 2019. 28 p. URL: https://keep.lib.asu.edu/items/157098/view (Accessed 27.05.2024).
20. Crowe E., Higgins E.T. Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 1997. Vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 117—132. DOI:10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
21. Dewey J.A., Knoblich G. Do implicit and explicit measures of the sense of agency measure the same thing? PloS One, 2014. Vol. 9, no. 10, article ID e110118. 9 p. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0110118
22. Ehlers H. Clinical testing of visual acuity. AMA Archives of Ophthalmology, 1953. Vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 431—434. DOI:10.1001/archopht.1953.00920020441007
23. Simmonds P.J., Wakefield C.J., Coyles G., Roberts J.W. Enhanced expectancies benefit performance under distraction, but compromise it under stress: Exploring the OPTIMAL theory. Human Movement Science, 2023. Vol. 89, article ID 103085. 11 p. DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2023.103085
24. Bahmani M., Wulf G., Ghadiri F., Karimi S., Lewthwaite R. Enhancing performance expectancies through visual illusions facilitates motor learning in children. Human Movement Science, 2017. Vol. 55, pp. 1—7. DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2017.07.001
25. Higgins E.T. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology, 1998. Vol. 30, pp. 1—46. DOI:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
26. Maquestiaux F., Lyphout-Spitz M., Ruthruff E., Arexis M. Ideomotor compatibility enables automatic response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2020. Vol. 27, pp. 742—750. DOI:10.3758/s13423-020-01735-6
27. Iwatsuki T., Regis C.J. Relatively Easy Criteria for Success Enhances Motor Learning by Altering Perceived Competence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2021. Vol. 128, no. 2, pp. 900—911. DOI:10.1177/0031512520981237
28. Lewin K. A research approach to leadership problems. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 1944. Vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 392—398. DOI:10.2307/2262546
29. Sandberg K., Timmermans B., Overgaard M., Cleeremans A. Measuring consciousness: is one measure better than the other? Consciousness and cognition, 2010. Vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1069—1078. DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2009.12.013
30. Sandberg K., Bibby B.M., Timmermans B., Cleeremans A., Overgaard M. Measuring consciousness: task accuracy and awareness as sigmoid functions of stimulus duration. Consciousness and cognition, 2011. Vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1659—1675. DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.002
31. Nisbett R.E., Wilson T.D. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological review, 1977. Vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 231—259. DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
32. Mann D.T., Williams A.M., Ward P., Janelle C.M. Perceptual-cognitive expertise in sport [Electronic resource]: A meta-analysis. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 2007. Vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 457—478. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5878313 (Accessed 16.05.2024)
33. Martinez V.M.L., Cardozo P., Kaefer A., Wulf G., Chiviacowsky S. Positive feedback enhances motivation and skill learning in adolescents. Learning and Motivation, 2024. Vol. 86, article ID 101966. 10 p. DOI:10.1016/j.lmot.2024.101966
34. Strasburger H., Harvey L.O., Rentschler I. Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view [Electronic resource]. Perception & psychophysics, 1991. Vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 495—508. URL: https://publications.goettingen-research-online.de/bitstream/2/61152/1/contrast.pdf (Accessed 17.05.2024).
35. McClelland D.C., Atkinson J.W., Clark R.A., Lowell E.L. The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953. 384 p. DOI:10.1037/11144-000
36. Bahrami S., Abdoli B., Farsi A., Aghdaei M., Simpson T. The Effect of Large Visual Illusion and External Focus of Attention on Gaze Behavior and Learning of Dart Throw Skill. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 2022. Vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 469—484. DOI:10.1123/jmld.2022-0043
37. Razeghi R., Arsham S., Movahedi A., Sammaknejad N. The effect of visual illusion on performance and quiet eye in autistic children. Early Child Development and Care, 2022. Vol. 192, no. 5, pp. 807—815. DOI:10.1080/03004430.2020
38. Timmermans B., Cleeremans A. How can we measure awareness? An overview of current methods. Behavioural methods in consciousness research, 2015. Vol. 21, pp. 21—46. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688890.003.0003
39. Bahmani M., Diekfuss J.A., Rostami R., Ataee N., Ghadiri F. Visual illusions affect motor performance, but not learning in highly skilled shooters. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 2018. Vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 220—233. DOI:10.1123/jmld.2017-0011
40. Witt J.K., Linkenauger S.A. Proffitt D.R. Get me out of this slump! Visual illusions improve sports performance. Psychological Science, 2012. Vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 397—399. DOI:10.1177/0956797611428810
41. Wood G., Vine S.J., Wilson M.R. The impact of visual illusions on perception, action planning, and motor performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2013. Vol. 75, pp. 830—834. DOI:10.3758/s13414-013-0489-y
42. Wulf G., Lewthwaite R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2016. Vol. 23, pp. 1382—1414. DOI:10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9
43. Ziv G., Lidor R. Different task success criteria affect expectancies of success but do not improve golf putting performance. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2021. Vol. 54, article ID 101887. 8 p. DOI:10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.101887
44. Ziv G., Lidor R., Lavie M. Enhanced expectancies in golf putting — a replication study with increased ecological validity. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2021. Vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1—12. DOI:10.1080/1612197X.2019.1637362
45. Ziv G., Ochayon M., Lidor R. Enhanced or diminished expectancies in golf putting—Which actually affects performance? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2019. Vol. 40, pp. 82—86. DOI:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.10.003