Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 201, Issue 4, pp 729–741 | Cite as

Open-loop, closed-loop and compensatory control: performance improvement under pressure in a rhythmic task

  • Felix Ehrlenspiel
  • Kunlin Wei
  • Dagmar Sternad
Research Article

Abstract

According to explicit monitoring theories, the phenomenon of choking under pressure is due to actors focusing their attention on the execution of the skill. This step-by-step perceptually guided control may then interfere with automatic execution. In order to examine the changes in control at the sensorimotor level, we examined the rhythmic task of ball bouncing which affords detailed quantification of indicators of control based on previous research. The hypothesis was that under psychological pressure perceptually guided control should lead to decreased performance due to over-emphasis on closed-loop control and decreased compensatory control. In two experiments of different difficulty psychological stress was induced via setting up a fake competition. Results showed that, contrary to the hypothesis, performance accuracy and consistency improved together with an increase in compensatory control. Indicators for open- and closed-loop processes did not change. Only under more challenging conditions in Experiment 2, enhanced performance under pressure was accompanied by more active, closed-loop and less passive control. The results are discussed in light of task demands and the continuous rhythmic nature of the task: in more challenging tasks, control appears to be more prone to disturbance due to psychological stress. The different control demands in continuous rhythmic tasks may be less prone to interference due to psychological stress than in discrete tasks.

Keywords

Choking under pressure Explicit monitoring Dynamical stability Continuous movements 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, BCS-0450218, the National Institutes of Health, R01 HD045639, and the Office of Naval Research, N00014-05-1-0844 awarded to Dagmar Sternad. Felix Ehrlenspiel was supported by a grant from the German Academic Exchange Program (DAAD) to visit Pennsylvania State University.

References

  1. Arutyunyan GH, Gurfinkel VS, Mirskii ML (1968) Investigation of aiming at a target. Biophysics 13:536–538Google Scholar
  2. Baumeister RF (1984) Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. J Pers Soc Psychol 46:610–620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister RF, Showers CJ (1986) A review of paradoxical performance effects: choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. J Social Psychol 16:361–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beilock SL, Carr T (2001) On the fragility of skilled performance: what governs choking under pressure. J Exp Psychol Gen 130:701–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Beilock SL, Carr TH, MacMahon C, Starkes JL (2002) When paying attention becomes counterproductive: impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. J Exp Psychol 8:6–16Google Scholar
  6. Bond CF, Titus LJ (1983) Social facilitation: a meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychol Bull 94:265–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen RG, Sternad D (2009) Variability in motor learning: relocating, channeling and reducing noise. Exp Brain Res 193:69–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins D, Jones B, Fairweather M, Doolan S, Priestley N (2001) Examining anxiety associated changes in movement patterns. Int J Sport Psychol 31:223–242Google Scholar
  9. Cusumano JP, Cesari P (2006) Body-goal variability mapping in an aiming task. Biol Cybern 94:367–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. de Rugy A, Sternad D (2003) Interaction between discrete and rhythmic movements: reaction time and phase of discrete movement initiation during oscillatory movements. Brain Res 994:160–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. de Rugy A, Wei K, Müller H, Sternad D (2003) Actively tracking ‘passive’ stability in a ball bouncing task. Brain Res 982:64–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijkstra TMH, Katsumata H, De Rugy A, Sternad D (2004) The dialogue between data and model: passive stability and relaxation behavior in a ball bouncing task. Nonlinear Stud 11:319–344Google Scholar
  13. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A (2007) Gpower 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gray R (2004) Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: expertise differences, choking, and slumps. J Exp Psychol Appl 10:42–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gucciardi DF, Dimmock JA (2008) Choking under pressure in sensorimotor skills: conscious processing or depleted attentional resources? Psychol Sport Exerc 9:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardy L, Mullen R, Jones G (1996) Knowledge and conscious control of motor action under stress. Br J Psychol 87:621–636PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Higuchi T (2000) Disruption of kinematic coordination in throwing under stress. Jpn Psychol Res 42:168–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Higuchi T, Imanaka K, Hatayama T (2002) Freezing degrees of freedom under stress: kinematic evidence of constrained movement strategies. Hum Mov Sci 21:831–846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hogan N, Sternad D (2007) On rhythmic and discrete movements: reflections, definitions and implications for motor control. Exp Brain Res 181:13–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jordet G, Hartman E, Sigmundstad E (2009) Temporal links to performing under pressure in international soccer penalty shootouts. Psychol Sport Exerc 10:621–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis BP, Linder DE (1997) Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 23:937–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martens R, Burton D, Vealey RS, Bump LA, Smith DE (1990) Development and validation of the competitive state anxiety inventory-2. In: Martens R, Vealey RS, Burton D (eds) Competitive anxiety in sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 117–190Google Scholar
  23. Masters RSW (1992) Knowledge, knerves and know-how: The role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. Br J Psychol 83:343–358Google Scholar
  24. Meijer RR, Oosterloo SJ (2008) A note on measurement scales and statistical testing. Meas Interdiscip Res Perspect 6:198–204Google Scholar
  25. Milton JG, Small S, Solodkin A (2004) On the road to automatic: dynamic aspects in the development of expertise. J Clin Neurophysiol 21:134–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Müller H, Sternad D (2003) A randomization method for calculation of covariation in multiple nonlinear relations: illustrated with the example of goal-directed movements. Biol Cybern 89:22–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Orfanidis SJ (1986) Introduction to signal processing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  28. Perkins-Ceccato N, Passmore SR, Lee TD (2003) Effects of focus of attention depend on golfers′ skill. J Sport Sci 21:593–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pijpers JR, Oudejans R, Bakker F (2005) Anxiety-induced changes in movement behaviour during the execution of a complex whole-body task. Q J Exp Psychol A 58:421–445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ronsse R, Lefevre P, Sepulchre R (2008a) Robotics and neuroscience: a rhythmic interaction. Neural Netw 21:577–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ronsse R, Thonnard JL, Lefevre P, Sepulchre R (2008b) Control of bimanual rhythmic movements: trading efficiency for robustness depending on the context. Exp Brain Res 187:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ronsse R, Sternad D, Lefevre P (2009) A computational model for rhythmic and discrete movements in uni- and bimanual coordination. Neural Comput 21:1335–1370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Schaal S, Atkeson CG, Sternad D (1996) One-handed juggling: a dynamical approach to a rhythmic movement task. J Mot Behav 28:165–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Schaal S, Sternad D, Osu R, Kawato M (2004) Rhythmic arm movement is not discrete. Nat Neurosci 7:1137–1144Google Scholar
  35. Schneider W, Fisk AD (1983) Attention theory and mechanisms for skilled performance. In: Magill RA (ed) Memory and control of action. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 119–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scholz JP, Schoner G (1999) The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Exp Brain Res 126:289–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE, Vagg PR (1983) A manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (form y). Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  38. Sternad D, Katsumata H, Duarte M, Schaal S (2001) Bouncing a ball: tuning into dynamic stability. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 27:1163–1184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Strauss B (2002) Social facilitation in motor tasks: a review of research and theory. Psychol Sport Exerc 3:237–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tenenbaum G, Furst D, Weingarten G (1985) A statistical reevaluation of the stai anxiety questionnaire. J Clin Psychol 41:239–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Travis LE (1925) The effect of a small audience upon eye-hand coordination. J Abnorm Social Psychol 20:142–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vickers JN, Williams AM (2007) Performing under pressure: the effects of physiological arousal, cognitive anxiety, and gaze control in biathlon. J Mot Behav 39:381–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wei K, Dijkstra TMH, Sternad D (2007) Passive stability and active control in a rhythmic task. J Neurophysiol 98:2633–2646CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wei K, Dijkstra TMH, Sternad D (2008) Stability and variability: indicators for passive stability and active control in a rhythmic task. J Neurophysiol 99:3027–3041CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright BD, Masters GN (1982) Rating scale analysis, Rasch measurement. MESA Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  46. Wrisberg C, Pein RL (1992) The preshot interval and free throw shooting accuracy: an exploratory investigation. Sport Psychol 6:14–23Google Scholar
  47. Zumbo BD, Zimmerman DW (1993) Is the selection of statistical methods governed by level of measurement? Can Psychol 34:390–400Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felix Ehrlenspiel
    • 1
  • Kunlin Wei
    • 2
    • 3
  • Dagmar Sternad
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Sports ScienceTechnische Universität MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyPeking UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Departments of Physiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Applied MathematicsNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Departments of Biology, Electrical and Computer Science, and PhysicsNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations