학술논문
Building a transdisciplinary expert consensus on the cognitive drivers of performance under pressure: An international multi-panel Delphi study
Document Type
article
Author
Lucy Albertella; Rebecca Kirkham; Amy B. Adler; John Crampton; Sean P. A. Drummond; Gerard J. Fogarty; James J. Gross; Leonard Zaichkowsky; Judith P. Andersen; Paul T. Bartone; Danny Boga; Jeffrey W. Bond; Tad T. Brunyé; Mark J. Campbell; Liliana G. Ciobanu; Scott R. Clark; Monique F. Crane; Arne Dietrich; Tracy J. Doty; James E. Driskell; Ivar Fahsing; Stephen M. Fiore; Rhona Flin; Joachim Funke; Justine M. Gatt; P. A. Hancock; Craig Harper; Andrew Heathcote; Kristin J. Heaton; Werner F. Helsen; Erika K. Hussey; Robin C. Jackson; Sangeet Khemlani; William D. S. Killgore; Sabina Kleitman; Andrew M. Lane; Shayne Loft; Clare MacMahon; Samuele M. Marcora; Frank P. McKenna; Carla Meijen; Vanessa Moulton; Gene M. Moyle; Eugene Nalivaiko; Donna O'Connor; Dorothea O’Conor; Debra Patton; Mark D. Piccolo; Coleman Ruiz; Linda Schücker; Ron A. Smith; Sarah J. R. Smith; Chava Sobrino; Melba Stetz; Damien Stewart; Paul Taylor; Andrew J. Tucker; Haike van Stralen; Joan N. Vickers; Troy A. W Visser; Rohan Walker; Mark W. Wiggins; Andrew Mark Williams; Leonard Wong; Eugene Aidman; Murat Yücel
Source
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 13 (2023)
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1664-1078
Abstract
IntroductionThe ability to perform optimally under pressure is critical across many occupations, including the military, first responders, and competitive sport. Despite recognition that such performance depends on a range of cognitive factors, how common these factors are across performance domains remains unclear. The current study sought to integrate existing knowledge in the performance field in the form of a transdisciplinary expert consensus on the cognitive mechanisms that underlie performance under pressure.MethodsInternational experts were recruited from four performance domains [(i) Defense; (ii) Competitive Sport; (iii) Civilian High-stakes; and (iv) Performance Neuroscience]. Experts rated constructs from the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework (and several expert-suggested constructs) across successive rounds, until all constructs reached consensus for inclusion or were eliminated. Finally, included constructs were ranked for their relative importance.ResultsSixty-eight experts completed the first Delphi round, with 94% of experts retained by the end of the Delphi process. The following 10 constructs reached consensus across all four panels (in order of overall ranking): (1) Attention; (2) Cognitive Control—Performance Monitoring; (3) Arousal and Regulatory Systems—Arousal; (4) Cognitive Control—Goal Selection, Updating, Representation, and Maintenance; (5) Cognitive Control—Response Selection and Inhibition/Suppression; (6) Working memory—Flexible Updating; (7) Working memory—Active Maintenance; (8) Perception and Understanding of Self—Self-knowledge; (9) Working memory—Interference Control, and (10) Expert-suggested—Shifting.DiscussionOur results identify a set of transdisciplinary neuroscience-informed constructs, validated through expert consensus. This expert consensus is critical to standardizing cognitive assessment and informing mechanism-targeted interventions in the broader field of human performance optimization.