New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Towering Targets: Why the Ball Looks Bigger When You're on Your Game

Pay close attention, and the bull's-eye might appear larger than it really is

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Successful batters often report that the baseball looked “huge” just before they hit a home run. This effect, dubbed action-specific perception, has been noted for years in all kinds of physical activities.

Yet questions remain about why the illusion happens. Some experts say it is a consequence of imagining the action before you make a move. Others suspect that knowing you nailed it might conjure a larger target in your memory. But a new study in Acta Psychologica suggests neither process alone is enough. Something else is needed: visual attention.

Researchers from Amsterdam and Hong Kong asked three groups of students to putt golf balls at a target about five feet away. After first checking out the target, one group had to putt the ball under a curtain obscuring the view. Another group putted between two corks en route to the target. The third group simply putted at the target without distraction. In all three cases, individuals got feedback about where their balls ended up. They then estimated the target’s size by drawing it on a computer screen.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


As expected, successful individuals in the straightforward putting experiment described a bigger target. Not so for the putters who could not see the target or give it their full attention.

The results challenge the theory that action-specific perception arises from imagining your motions before performing them, explains co-author John van der Kamp of the Free University Amsterdam, because such visualization was possible for all the participants. Similarly, simply knowing the putt hit the pin was not enough.

Visual attention to the target, therefore, is key. But scientists still do not know whether seeing a bigger target contributes to—or results from—success. One thing is clear: what we see is often not an accurate reflection of the world around us. Our senses are influenced by our attention and experiences.

Andrea Anderson is a science journalist based in Canada. She has written for Audubon, Discover and Nature Medicine.

More by Andrea Anderson
SA Mind Vol 22 Issue 3This article was published with the title “Towering Targets: Why the Ball Looks Bigger When You're on Your Game” in SA Mind Vol. 22 No. 3 (), p. 6
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0711-6

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe