Prediction and Efficacy Control in Sensorimotor Activity with Delboeuf Illusion

Theoretical ideas describing the dependence of task results on subjective ideas about one’s own capabilities are well known in psychology. In the context of sensorimotor activity, these ideas predict an increase in efficiency when working with subjectively simple goals and decrease when working with subjectively complex ones. The subjective perception of the complexity of the task is modeled by using the illusion of size. The article analyzes the contradictions in the research results on the material of the Ebbinghaus illusion and proposes modifications of previously used experimental paradigms. An experimental study of sensorimotor activity in the format of a computer game was carried out. 65 participants of the study were offered the task of precisely obtaining the goals represented by the Delbeuf illusion, or reaching the control goals. Prediction and subjective performance evaluation were also measured using the questions “Will you reach it now?” and “Did you reach it in the previous test?”. The results showed greater accuracy in obtaining an illusory larger target compared to an illusory smaller one. The data on forecasting and subjective assessment of efficacy did not significantly differ between illusory stimuli, however, the assessment of a substantionally smaller goal was different from the rest — study participants believed that they were less able to reach a substantionally smaller goal. The analysis of the preparation period for the beginning of the task also revealed differences between the perception of illusory and control stimuli. The results obtained serve as evidence in favor of the idea concerning the existence of a special psyche mechanism that makes predictions about possible efficacy of a particular task and then adjusts the real results to the proposed forecast.

1. Bandura A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. American psychologist, 1989, vol. 44 (9), pp. 1175–1184.
2. Maier S.F., Seligman M.E. Learned helplessness: theory and evidence. Journal of experimental psychology: general, 1976, vol. 105 (1), pp. 3–46.
3. Maass A., Cadinu M. Stereotype threat: When minority members underperform. European review of social psychology, 2003, vol. 14 (1), pp. 243–275.
4. Kirsch I. Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior. American Psychologist, 1985, vol. 40 (11), pp. 1189–1202. .
5. Allakhverdov V.M. Consciousness as a paradox. St. Petersburg, DNK Publ., 2000. (In Russian).
6. 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 (5), pp. 1382–1414.
7. 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 (4), pp. 397–399.
8. 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 (5), pp. 830–834.
9. Chauvel G., Wulf G., Maquestiaux F. Visual illusions can facilitate sport skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2015, vol. 22 (3), pp. 717–721.
10. Bahmani M., Wulf G., Ghadiri F., Karimi S. Enhancing performance expectancies through visual illusions facilitates motor learning in children. Human Movement Science, 2017, vol. 55, pp. 1–7.
11. Bahmani M., Diekfuss J., 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 (2), pp. 220–233.
12. 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 (5), pp. 285–389.
13. Coon V. The Perceptual Motor-effects of the Ebbinghaus Illusion on Golf Putting. MS thesis. Arizona State University, 2019.
14. Maquestiaux F., Arexis M., Chauvel G., Ladoy J., Boyer P., Mazerolle M. Ebbinghaus visual illusion: no robust influence on novice golf-putting performance. Psychological Research, 2020, pp. 1–11.
15. Kulieva A.K., Buriachenko E.R. The larger target, the more accurate hit? Efficiency of performing a sensorimotor task during working with illusory stimuli. Kognitivnaia nauka v Moskve: novye issledovaniia. Moscow, BukiVedi Publ., 2019, pp. 284–289. (In Russian) .
16. Chikhman V.N., Bonrardo V.M., Goluzina A.G., Danolova M.V., Solnushkin S.D. The influence of the environment on recognition errors in the crowding effect. Sensornye sistemy, 2012, vol. 26 (3), pp. 195–203 (In Russian) .
17. Milner A.D., Goodale M.A. Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia, 2008, vol. 46 (3), pp. 774–785.
18. Kulieva A.K. The influence of self-efficacy subjective representations on cognitive tasks solution. Peterburgskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 2018, vol. 25, pp. 51–70. (In Russian).
19. Lewin K., Dembo T., Festinger L., & Sears P. S. Level of aspiration. Ed. by J.McV.Hunt. Personality and the behavior disorder. New York, Ronald Press, 1944.
20. Palmer K., Chiviacowsky S., Wulf G. Enhanced expectancies facilitate golf putting. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2016, vol. 22, pp. 229–232.
21. 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.
22. Karpinskaya V.Yu., Liakhovetskii V.A. The role of the illusion of size in the task of hitting the target. Kognitivnaia nauka v Moskve: novye issledovaniia. Moscow, BukiVedi Publ., 2017, pp. 122–126. (In Russian)