↓ Skip to main content

Manipulating target size influences perceptions of success when learning a dart-throwing skill but does not impact retention

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Manipulating target size influences perceptions of success when learning a dart-throwing skill but does not impact retention
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01378
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole T. Ong, Keith R. Lohse, Nicola J. Hodges

Abstract

Positive feedback or experiences of success during skill acquisition have been shown to benefit motor skill learning. In this study, our aim was to manipulate learners' success perceptions through a minor adjustment to goal criterion (target size) in a dart-throwing task. Two groups of novice participants practiced throwing at a large (easy) or a small (difficult) target from the same distance. In reference to the origin/center of the target, the practice targets were alike in objective difficulty and indeed participants in both groups were not different in their objective practice performance (i.e., radial error from the center). Although the groups experienced markedly different success rates, with the large target group experiencing more hits and reporting greater confidence (or self-efficacy) than the small target group, these practice effects were not carried into longer-term retention, which was assessed after a 1-week delay. For success perceptions to moderate or benefit motor learning, we argue that unambiguous indicators of positive performance are necessary, especially for tasks where intrinsic feedback about objective error is salient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 38 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 8 20%
Psychology 6 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,268,500
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,412
of 34,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,442
of 281,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#182
of 561 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,647 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 561 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.