Putting in the mind versus putting on the green: Expertise, performance time, and the linking of imagery and action

Abstract

Does manipulating the time available to image executing a sensorimotor skill impact subsequent skill execution outcomes in a similar manner as manipulating execution time itself? Novice and skilled golfers performed a series of imaged golf putts followed by a series of actual golf putts under instructions that emphasized either speeded or nonspeeded imaging/putting execution. Novices putted less accurately (i.e., higher putting error score) following either putting or imagery instructions in which speed was stressed. Skilled golfers showed the opposite pattern. Although more time available to execute a skill enhances novice performance, this extra time harms the proceduralized skill of experts. Manipulating either actual execution time or imagined execution time produces this differential impact on novice and skilled performance outcomes. These results are discussed in terms of the functional equivalence between imagery and action and expertise differences in the attentional control structures governing complex sensorimotor skill execution.

Keywords:

• Expertise
• Attention
• Imagery
• Embodied cognition
• Speed-accuracy trade-off

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Grant R305H050004 and National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant BCS-0601148 to S. L. Beilock.

Notes

¹ Moreover, using imagery ability as a covariate in the central analysis examining the impact of imagery instructions and putting instructions on putting accuracy (seen below) did not alter the pattern of results in any way.

² We also performed the same Putting Instruction × Imagery Instruction × Expertise analysis on putting accuracy while covarying out putting time and imagery time. The Imagery Instruction × Expertise interaction was maintained when putting time was covaried out of the analysis, and, likewise, the Putting Instruction × Expertise interaction was maintained when imagery time was covaried out of the analysis (ps < .05, respectively). This ensures that our two-way interaction of Imagery Time × Expertise was maintained even when putting time was held constant, and our two-way interaction of Putting Time × Expertise was maintained even when imagery time was held constant. There was no three-way Putting Instruction × Imagery Instruction × Expertise interaction in any of the above analyses (Fs = 0.01). Taken together with the main analyses reported in the text, these results add further support to the notion that putting instructions and imagery instructions had independent effects on putting accuracy.