Motor Behavior

The Effect of Practice with Ebbinghaus' Illusion (Large target Perception – Small Target Perception) in Field Dependence and Field Independence Individuals on a Targeting Skill Performance

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Mohsen Rajaei 1
Shila Safavi 2
Ahmad Reza Movahedi 3

1 M.Sc. of Motor Behavior, University of Isfahan

2 Assistant Professor of Motor Behavior, University of Isfahan

3 Professor Motor Behavior, University of Isfahan

https://doi.org/10.22089/mbj.2018.4621.1544
Abstract
The aim of present study Esfahan was to examine the effect of practice with Ebbinghaus' illusion on targeting skill performance in field dependence and field independence individuals. The Group Embedded Figure Test was distributed among 300 male students with the average age of 13.86±1.08. On the basis of the test results 60 people were divided into four groups (n=15) field independence on large target perception, field dependence on small target perception, field dependence on large target perception, field independence on small target perception groups. A pre-test was conducted to ensure that there were no differences between the groups at pre intervention time; the participants practiced marble shooting, (3×50 trials) in three sessions based on their groups. After 24 and 72 hours from the last practice session, retention and a transfer test was taken respectively. For analyzing data, two-way ANOVA and Tukey test were used. The results showed a significant difference between the main effect cognitive style on retention test and between the main effects cognitive style, visual error and the interaction effect (visual error×cognitive style) in the transfer test (P<0.05). Findings showed a significant difference between the field dependent group with the larger perceived target and the other groups (P<0.05). This study suggests that practicing with a larger perceived target for individuals who are field dependence, has a negative effect and, practicing with a smaller perceived target is an advantage for them.

Keywords

Ebbinghaus' Illusion
Field Dependence and Field Independence
Cognitive Styles
Motor Learning

Subjects

  1. Sternberg JR, Sternberg K. Cognitive Psychology. 6th ed. Astoralia: Dortmond; 2011. p. 84-132.
  2. Milner AD, Goodale MA. Two visual systems re-viewed. Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(3):774-85.
  3. Binkofski F, Buxbaum LJ. Two action systems in the human brain. Brain Lang. 2013;127(2):222-9.
  4. Aglioti S, DeSouza JF, Goodale MA. Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand. Curr Biol. 1995;5(6):679-85.
  5. Servos P, Carnahan H, Fedwick J. The visuomotor system resists the horizontal-vertical illusion. J Mot Behav. 2000;32(4):400-4.
  6. Schmidt RA, Lee TD. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2005 . p.130-46.
  7. Norman J. Two visual systems and two theories of perception: An attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. Behav Brain Sci. 2002;25(1):73-96.
  8. Robinson JO. The psychology of visual illusion. Mineola, New York: dover publication; 2013. p.169-250.
  9. Cañal-Bruland R, van der Meer Y, Moerman J. Can visual illusions be used to facilitate sport skill learning? J Mot Behav. 2016; 48(5):1-5.
  10. Witt JK, Linkenauger SA, Proffitt DR. Get me out of this slump! Visual illusions improve sports performance. Psychol Sci. 2012;23(4):397-9.
  11. Witt JK, Linkenauger SA, Bakdash JZ, Proffitt DR. Putting to a bigger hole: Golf performance relates to perceived size. Psychonomic Bull Rev. 2008;15(3):581-5.
  12. Chauvel G, Wulf G, Maquestiaux F. Visual illusions can facilitate sport skill learning. Psychonomic Bull Rev. 2015;22(3):717-21.
  13. Witt JK, Proffitt DR. See the ball, hit the ball apparent ball size is correlated with batting average. Psychol Sci. 2005;16(12):937-8.
  14. Wesp R, Cichello P, Gracia EB, Davis K. Observing and engaging in purposeful actions with objects influences estimates of their size. Percept Psychophys. 2004;66(8):1261-7.
  15. Hanisch C, Konczak J, Dohle C. The effect of the Ebbinghaus illusion on grasping behaviour of children. Exp Brain Res. 2001;137(2):237-45.
  16. Phillips WA, Chapman KL, Berry PD. Size perception is less context-sensitive in males. Perception. 2004;33(1):79-86.
  17. Doherty MJ, Tsuji H, Phillips WA. The context sensitivity of visual size perception varies across cultures. Perception. 2008;37(9):1426-33.
  18. Baron-Cohen S, Richler J, Bisarya D, Gurunathan N, Wheelwright S. The systemizing quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high–functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser B Biol Sci. 2003;358(1430):361-74
  19. Baron-Cohen S. The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends Cognit Sci. 2002;6(6):248-54.
  20. Davlin-Pater C. The effects of visual information and perceptual style on static and dynamic balance. Motor Control. 2010;14(3):362–70.
  21. Isableu B, Ohlmann T, Crémieux J, Amblard B. Differential approach to strategies of segmental stabilisation in postural control. Exp Brain Res. 2003;150(2):208–21.
  22. Onyekuru BU. Field dependence-field independence cognitive style, gender , career choice and academic achievement of secondary school students in Emohua local government area of Rivers State. J Educ Pract. 2015;6(10):76–86.
  23. Chen C-M, Tsai Y-N. Interactive augmented reality system for enhancing library instruction in elementary schools. Comput Educ. 2012;59(2):638-52.
  24. Chen C-M, Li Y-L. Personalised context-aware ubiquitous learning system for supporting effective English vocabulary learning. Interact Learn Environ. 2010;18(4):341-64.
  25. Bagust J, Docherty S, Haynes W, Telford R, Isableu B. Changes in rod and frame test scores recorded in schoolchildren during development: A longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):1–10.
  26. Pakideh A, Shetab Bousehri N, Heidarnezhad S. The effect of cognitive styles and environmental conditions on learning acquisition learning basics two male basketball students [Master's thesis]: [Ahwaz]. University of Shahid Chamran; 2012. (In Persian).
  27. Ghotbi VA, Zarghmi M, Saemi E, Maleki F. The effect of cognitive styles on accuracy: The role of working memory. Dev Mot Learn. 2013;10(8):61-78. (In Persian).
  28. Azizi H, Hoseini FS. Effect of external and internal focus of attention instructions in field dependence and independence on performance and learning of dart throwing. Mot Beha. 2015;7(22):131-84. (In Persian).
  29. Liu W, Chepyator-Thomson JR. Field dependence–independence and physical activity engagement among middle school students. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2009;14(2):125-36.
  30. Bahrami A, Ghotbi Varzane A, Saemi E. Accuracy assessment in open and closed environments: Cognitive style approach. Mot Behav. 2013;5(13):77-94 .(In Persian).
  31. Kadivar P, Abdullahpor M. Relation cognitive styles to development study. J Psychol 2005;3(8):30-44.
  32. Farhan V, Dabagh S, Mahmoodi A. Compare kinematic traits of free throw and basketball pairing with software kinovea. Paper prseneted at: National Conference on Applied Sciences of Sport and Health; 2015 October 8; Shahid Madani University of Azarbaijan, Tabriz, Iran. (In Persian).
  33. Yan JH. Cognitive styles affect choice response time and accuracy. Pers Indiv Differ. 2010;48(6):747-51.
  34. Ghffarzadeh Ahangar S, Shafizadeh P, Shetab Booshehri N, Ghotbi Varzane A. Comparison of simple and selective visual and auditory response time in cognitive and field dependent fields. J Sport manegement action Behav. 2013;9(17):131-42. (In Persian).
  35. Prochaska JJ, Sallis JF, Griffith B, Douglas J. Physical activity levels of Barbadian youth and comparison to a US sample. Int J Behav Med. 2002;9(4):360-72.
  36. Wood G, Vine SJ, Wilson MR. The impact of visual illusions on perception, action planning, and motor performance. Attention Percept Psychophys. 2013;75(5):830-4.
  37. Bahmani M, Wulf G, Ghadiri F, Karimi S, Lewthwaite R. Enhancing performance expectancies through visual illusions facilitates motor learning in children. Hum Mov Sci. 2017;55:1-7.
  38. Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bull Rev. 2016;23(5):1382-414.
  39. Trempe M, Sabourin M, Proteau L. Success modulates consolidation of a visuomotor adaptation task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit. 2012;38(1):52-60.
  40. Rahimzadeghan Z, SHabani B, Motazavi S. Dependency field managers and change management in higher education Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. J Fundam Ment Heal. 2009;11(43):239–47.
Motor Behavior
Volume 12, Issue 39
Spring 2020
Spring 2020
Pages 33-50

  • Receive Date 13 August 2017
  • Revise Date 13 January 2018
  • Accept Date 18 February 2018

Home

Reviewers

Submit Manuscript

Publication Ethics

news

Journal Metrics

Contact Us