## 1 Introduction  
Augmented feedback (AF) is defined as externally sourced feedback provided either as knowledge of results or knowledge of performance [1]. AF has been shown to influence motor performance, either enhancing it [2] or impairing it [3]. This effect can occur over both long-term [4] and short-term periods [5]. The impact of AF has been demonstrated in various interventions where it serves as a dependent variable to enhance motor performance [2, 6, 7]. Moreover, these effects have been observed when feedback is delivered through social comparison or normative feedback [8, 9]. Normative feedback (NF), by definition, involves social comparison. Specifically, performance improvements have been found when participants are informed that they are performing better than their peers (positive NF) compared to when they are told they are performing worse (negative NF) [10, 11, 9, 12]. This performance enhancement of the positive NF group over the negative NF group in a motor task is evident in both the acquisition and retention phases after a 24-48 h rest period [2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16]. A key factor in the effect of AF on motor behavior is perceived personal control. Perceived personal control refers to the belief that outcomes are determined by one's own behavior rather than external factors or chance. Perceived personal control plays a crucial role in forming the expectation of achieving instrumental outcomes [17; 18]. Furthermore, greater perceived control over one's environment is inherently rewarding [19] and can influence performance expectations [7]. Perceptions of control can be manipulated through the delivery of successful outcomes [19] or by inducing an illusion of control through AF [3]. In both cases, the feeling of personal control may be overestimated or underestimated compared to the actual contingencies between actions and outcomes [20]. Arguably, outcomes depend more on perceived control than on objective control, and thus, manipulating perceived personal control during an activity may improve performance [21]. According to Turk [22], accompanying tasks with feedback--both physical and verbal--should be considered to achieve a change in the behavior of individuals. Thus, if subjects, when attributing the cause of certain results, think that they can do nothing to control their success, their efforts on the task will be minimal, leading to frustration. Research on attributional style is extensive across various domains of human functioning. However, relatively little research has been conducted to explore whether the induction of attributions about motor skills, whether learned or innate skills, can affect motor learning and performance. Jourden et al. [17] provided some intriguing findings regarding how perceptions of a particular task influence its execution. Young adults who believed they were engaging in a pursuit-rotor tracking exercise to develop an acquirable skill demonstrated better performances. They also reported greater confidence in their abilities and a higher interest in the activity. In contrast, participants who were led to believe that the exercise was a measure of an innate and immutable capacity showed no improvement. Furthermore, their feelings of confidence in their ability and interest in the exercise were decidedly lower. These findings suggest that how an activity is presented significantly influences both its perception and actual performance. A follow-up study further supported these results by examining participants' learning a balance task [23]. Long-term retention tests revealed a stronger overriding effect when instructions at the outset of learning emphasized that the skill could be developed through practice. Conversely, learning was less effective when the task was framed as a reflection of innate ability or when instructions did not address this issue at all.