Target Size Manipulations Affect Error-Processing Duration and Success Perceptions but not Behavioural Indices of Learning

Abstract

We evaluated if and how success perceptions, through target size manipulations, impact processes related to motor learning. This work was based on recent literature suggesting that expectations and self-efficacy exert a direct impact on learning. We measured arousal, kinematics, learner expectancies, motivation, and outcomes in a dart-throwing task. Novices (n = 29) were assigned to either a “Large-target” (horizontal target, 10-cm high) or “Small-target” (2-cm high) group for practice (t = 90), and both groups completed 24-h retention tests. The Small-target group took longer to plan and process feedback in the pre-throw and post-throw periods, respectively, and showed larger joint amplitudes early in practice compared to the Large-target group. As predicted, the Large-target group made more hits and had heightened outcome expectancies compared to the Small-target group. Surprisingly, only the Large-target group performed better than they expected. Despite the Large-target group having more target hits, enhanced expectancies, and more unexpected success, this group did not outperform the Small-target group on behavioural indices of performance and learning. This research questions assumptions and results related to success-related manipulations for task performance and mechanisms related to target size manipulations.

A systematic review of motivational and attentional variables on children’s fundamental movement skill development: the OPTIMAL theory

“…Furthermore, the target size may have further influenced movement mechanics and the EF effect. For example, throwing at a 1cm wide-target (i.e., bullseye of a dartboard) requires greater precision than throwing at a 12.5cm target (Kranjenbrink et al, 2018) and could therefore result in greater movement variability to select the correct motor response (Ong, Hawke, & Hodges, 2019). Whilst an IF may aid precision by freezing degrees of motor freedom (e.g., reducing movement variability); in general, an IF is detrimental to motor learning (e.g., movement reinvestment; Masters & Maxwell 2008;Poolton et al, 2006).…”

A test of optimal theory on young adolescents' standing long jump performance and motivation

“…EE has also been associated with positive affect (e.g., positive feelings) due to its link with dopamine release, which contributes to the consolidation of motor memories and readies the motor system for effective goal-action coupling (Sugawara, Tanaka, Okazaki, Watanabe, & Sadato, 2012;Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016). However, some studies indicate that enhancing expectancies has not always benefited motor performance and learning (e.g., Ong, Hawke, & Hodges, 2019;Ong & Hodges, 2018). Similarly, conditions which support an individual's need for autonomy (AS) have been positively correlated with self-efficacy for motor tasks (Lemos, Wulf, Lewthwaite, & Chiviacowsky, 2017).…”

Goal difficulty level and perceived competence on volleyball serve learning

“…Finally, previous studies showed improved success perception when learning involved lower difficulty goals (Ong, Hawke & Hodges, 2019) and even better learning than difficult goals (Iwatsuki & Regis, 2020). However, Carvalhais et al (2021) showed that learning is better when perceived competence is high.…”