Author:
Albertella Lucy,Kirkham Rebecca,Adler Amy B.,Crampton John,Drummond Sean P. A.,Fogarty Gerard J.,Gross James J.,Zaichkowsky Leonard,Andersen Judith P.,Bartone Paul T.,Boga Danny,Bond Jeffrey W.,Brunyé Tad T.,Campbell Mark J.,Ciobanu Liliana G.,Clark Scott R.,Crane Monique F.,Dietrich Arne,Doty Tracy J.,Driskell James E.,Fahsing Ivar,Fiore Stephen M.,Flin Rhona,Funke Joachim,Gatt Justine M.,Hancock P. A.,Harper Craig,Heathcote Andrew,Heaton Kristin J.,Helsen Werner F.,Hussey Erika K.,Jackson Robin C.,Khemlani Sangeet,Killgore William D. S.,Kleitman Sabina,Lane Andrew M.,Loft Shayne,MacMahon Clare,Marcora Samuele M.,McKenna Frank P.,Meijen Carla,Moulton Vanessa,Moyle Gene M.,Nalivaiko Eugene,O'Connor Donna,O’Conor Dorothea,Patton Debra,Piccolo Mark D.,Ruiz Coleman,Schücker Linda,Smith Ron A.,Smith Sarah J. R.,Sobrino Chava,Stetz Melba,Stewart Damien,Taylor Paul,Tucker Andrew J.,van Stralen Haike,Vickers Joan N.,Visser Troy A. W,Walker Rohan,Wiggins Mark W.,Williams Andrew Mark,Wong Leonard,Aidman Eugene,Yücel Murat
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.
Funder
Monash University
National Health and Medical Research Council
Australian Research Council
Science Foundation Ireland
European Regional Development Fund
U.S. Department of Defense
University of Sydney