Kicking to Bigger Uprights: Field Goal Kicking Performance Influences Perceived Size

Witt, Jessica K.; Dorsch, Travis E.

doi:10.1068/p6325

Cited by 89 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Canal-Bruland, Pijpers, and Oudejans (2012) recently provided evidence consistent with this proposal in a dartthrowing task as there was a significant negative correlation between perceived target size and the standard deviation of radial errors. Witt and Dorsch (2009) provided evidence that this mechanism may be directional as well. In this study, field goal kickers in American football were asked to judge the width and height of the uprights after kicking.…”

Section: R Graymentioning

confidence: 94%

Embodied perception in sport

Gray

2014

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: R Graymentioning

confidence: 94%

Embodied perception in sport

Gray

2014

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this case, a top-down effect would require that the perceiver's explicit knowledge about a particular thing influence perception. According to this definition, actionspecific effects would not qualify as top-down effects, because action-specific effects are based on motor, not cognitive, processes Taylor-Covill & Eves, 2016;Witt & Dorsch, 2009;. Thus, one can accept action-specific effects as being perceptual without having to reject the idea that spatial perception is immune to cognitive influence.…”

Section: Rejecting Modularity While Keeping Cognitive Impenetrabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the relationship between athletic performance and perceived size has been documented in myriad sports. Several pitfalls have been examined, such as accounting for memory-based effects , low-level differences (Witt & Dorsch, 2009), and attention (Gray et al, 2014). But other pitfalls still need to be explored.…”

Section: Rejecting Modularity While Keeping Cognitive Impenetrabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Action potential influences spatial perception: Evidence for genuine top-down effects on perception

Witt

2016

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The action-specific account of spatial perception asserts that a perceiver's ability to perform an action, such as hitting a softball or walking up a hill, impacts the visual perception of the target object. Although much evidence is consistent with this claim, the evidence has been challenged as to whether perception is truly impacted, as opposed to the responses themselves. These challenges have recently been organized as six pitfalls that provide a framework with which to evaluate the empirical evidence. Four case studies of actionspecific effects are offered as evidence that meets the framework's high bar, and thus that demonstrates genuine perceptual effects. That action influences spatial perception is evidence that perceptual and action-related processes are intricately and bidirectionally linked.Keywords Embodied cognition . Spatial cognition . Visual perception . Action-specific perception No vision scientist would deny that a primary purpose of vision is action. But how vision best serves action has been continuously debated. For some, visual perception best serves action by being as geometrically accurate as possible. Given ambiguities in the visual information, the visual system makes underlying assumptions (known as priors or natural constraints) and unconscious inferences based on statistical regularities of the environment. These approaches fall under constructivist accounts. Action's role in constructivist approaches is primarily limited to being a motivation for why perception needs to achieve constancy (so that visual information can be successfully transformed into motor coordinates), but is not itself considered to be an influence for perception.Even for approaches to vision that place a greater emphasis on action, its role is limited. According to the ecological account, perception best serves action by being faithful to the visual information, without being supplemented with extraneous ideas (Gibson, 1979; see Witt & Riley, 2014, for extended discussion on the discrepencies between ecological and action-specific approaches). In situations in which the visual information is ambiguous, the perceiver can simply move around the object to accumulate more information until the information is unambiguous. For ecological accounts, action's role is relevant in gathering the necessary visual information, and action drives perception to actively select the information that is relevant for action, but action does not provide direct information for perception. As another example of an account that purportedly emphasizes action, the theory of two visual streams emphasizes both perception and action (Milner & Goodale, 1995). However, even this theory divorces perception from action by considering the two to be subserved by anatomically different pathways. Indeed, such theories refer to the ventral pathway as "vision for perception" and the dorsal pathway as "vision for action." Given that the processing in the dorsal stream is thought to be unconscious (Milner & Goodale, 2008), this theory emphas...

show abstract

“…Tennis players unsuccessful at hitting a tennis ball judge the ball as having a greater incoming velocity compared to success in hitting the ball onto the court . Novices attempting to place-kick a football through a goal post view the width between the posts to be larger when they are successful compared to not being successful (Witt & Dorsch, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Action-specific judgment, not perception: Fitts’ law performance is related to estimates of target width only when participants are given a performance score

Zelaznik

Forney

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proponents of the action-specific account of perception and action posit that participants perceive their environment relative to their capabilities. For example, softball players who batted well judge the ball as being larger compared to players who did not hit as well. In the present study, we examined this issue in the context of a well-known speedaccuracy movement task that can be examined in the laboratory, repetitive Fitts aiming. In the Fitts task, a performer moved as quickly and as accurately as possible between two targets, D units of distance apart (between 2.5 and 20.0 cm) and of W width (1.0 cm or less). In the Fitts task, we posited that individuals do not have access to performance quality. Thus, we asked whether individual differences in Fitts task performance was related to perception of target width. If Fitts task performance is related to perception of target width, then the action-specific effect on perception does not require explicit knowledge of performance and, furthermore, these effects reside during on-line visual control of the task. We show that only when subjects were provided with a performance score was there a relation between Fitts task performance and target width judgment error. We interpret this result to mean that action-specific effects do not occur during perceptual processing of the task, but action-specific effects are the result of postperformance evaluation processes.

show abstract

Kicking to Bigger Uprights: Field Goal Kicking Performance Influences Perceived Size

Cited by 89 publications

References 30 publications

Embodied perception in sport

Embodied perception in sport

Action potential influences spatial perception: Evidence for genuine top-down effects on perception

Action-specific judgment, not perception: Fitts’ law performance is related to estimates of target width only when participants are given a performance score

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About