Advertisement

Limiting motor skill knowledge via incidental training protects against choking under pressure

  • Taraz G. Lee
  • Daniel E. Acuña
  • Konrad P. Kording
  • Scott T. Grafton
Brief Report

Abstract

The paradoxical harmful effects of motivation and incentives on skilled performance (“choking under pressure”) are observed in a wide variety of motor tasks. Two theories of this phenomenon suggest that choking under pressure occurs due to maladaptive attention and top-down control, either through distraction away from the task or interference via an overreliance on controlled processing of a skilled task. A third theory, overmotivation (or overarousal), suggests that under pressure, “instinctive” or Pavlovian approach/withdrawal responses compete with the desired response. Only the two former theories predict that choking under pressure would be less likely to occur if an individual is unaware of the skill over which to assert top-down control. Here we show that only participants who train and perform with premovement cues that allowed for preparatory movement planning choke under pressure due to large monetary incentives, and that this effect is independent of the level of skill attained. We provide evidence that this might be due to increased movement variability under performance pressure. In contrast, participants trained incidentally to reduce explicit skill knowledge do not modulate performance on the basis of incentives and appear immune to choking. These results are most consistent with distraction theories of choking and suggest that training strategies that limit awareness may lead to skills that are more robust under performance pressure.

Keywords

Cognitive control and automaticity Implicit vs. explicit memory Attention and executive control Skill acquisition 

Supplementary material

13423_2018_1486_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. Abrahamse, E. L., Ruitenberg, M. F. L., de Kleine, E., & Verwey, W. B. (2013). Control of automated behavior: Insights from the discrete sequence production task. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 82.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00082 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Acuna, D. E., Wymbs, N. F., Reynolds, C. A., Picard, N., Turner, R. S., Strick, P. L., … Kording, K. P. (2014). Multifaceted aspects of chunking enable robust algorithms. Journal of Neurophysiology, 112, 1849–1856.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00028.2014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Ariely, D., Gneezy, U., Loewenstein, G., & Mazar, N. (2009). Large stakes and big mistakes. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 451–469.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00534.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R., & Showers, C. J. (1986). A review of paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 361–383.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420160405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610–620.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.610 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Beilock, S. L., Bertenthal, B. I., McCoy, A. M., & Carr, T. H. (2004). Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 373–379.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196585 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130, 701–725.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701 Google Scholar
  8. Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101–105.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Beilock, S. L., Carr, T. H., MacMahon, C., & Starkes, J. L. (2002). When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 6–16.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.1.6 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Beilock, S. L., & Gray, R. (2012). From attentional control to attentional spillover: A skill-level investigation of attention, movement, and performance outcomes. Human Movement Science, 31, 1473–1499.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2012.02.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bischoff-Grethe, A., Goedert, K. M., Willingham, D. T., & Grafton, S. T. (2004). Neural substrates of response-based sequence learning using fMRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 127–138.  https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904322755610 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Buračas, G. T., & Boynton, G. M. (2002). Efficient design of event-related fMRI experiments using M-sequences. NeuroImage, 16, 801–813.  https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1116 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Chib, V. S., De Martino, B., Shimojo, S., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2012). Neural mechanisms underlying paradoxical performance for monetary incentives are driven by loss aversion. Neuron, 74, 582–594.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.038 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Chib, V. S., Shimojo, S., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2014). The effects of incentive framing on performance decrements for large monetary outcomes: Behavioral and neural mechanisms. Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 14833–14844.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1491-14.2014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooke, A., Kavussanu, M., McIntyre, D., & Ring, C. (2010). Psychological, muscular and kinematic factors mediate performance under pressure. Psychophysiology, 47, 1109–1118.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01021.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Curran, T., & Keele, S. W. (1993). Attentional and nonattentional forms of sequence learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 189–202.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.1.189 Google Scholar
  17. DeCaro, M. S., Thomas, R. D., Albert, N. B., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Choking under pressure: Multiple routes to skill failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 390–406.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Foerde, K., Knowlton, B. J., & Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Modulation of competing memory systems by distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 11778–11783.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0602659103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grafton, S. T., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. (1995). Functional mapping of sequence learning in normal humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 497–510.  https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.4.497 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Grafton, S. T., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. B. (1998). Abstract and effector-specific representations of motor sequences identified with PET. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 9420–9428.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.18-22-09420.1998 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gray, R. (2004). Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: Expertise differences, choking, and slumps. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 10, 42–54.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.10.1.42 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hazeltine, E., Grafton, S. T., & Ivry, R. (1997). Attention and stimulus characteristics determine the locus of motor-sequence encoding: A PET study. Brain, 120, 123–140.  https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/120.1.123 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Janacsek, K., & Nemeth, D. (2013). Implicit sequence learning and working memory: Correlated or complicated? Cortex, 49, 2001–2006.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.02.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Keele, S. W., Ivry, R., Mayr, U., Hazeltine, E., & Heuer, H. (2003). The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. Psychological Review, 110, 316–339.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.316 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kimble, G. A., & Perlmuter, L. C. (1970). The problem of volition. Psychological Review, 77, 361–384.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029782 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee, T. G., & Grafton, S. T. (2015). Out of control: Diminished prefrontal activity coincides with impaired motor performance due to choking under pressure. NeuroImage, 105, 145–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.058 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937–944.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297239003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Logan, G. D., & Crump, M. J. C. (2011). Hierarchical control of cognitive processes: The case for skilled typewriting. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 54, pp. 1–27). San Diego: Academic Press.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00001-2 Google Scholar
  31. Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, knerves and know-how: The role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 343–358.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02446.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maxwell, J. P., Masters, R. S. W., Kerr, E., & Weedon, E. (2001). The implicit benefit of learning without errors. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 1049–1068.  https://doi.org/10.1080/713756014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Mazzoni, P., & Krakauer, J. (2006). An implicit plan overrides an explicit strategy during visuomotor adaptation. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 3642–3645.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5317-05.2006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Mobbs, D., Hassabis, D., Seymour, B., Marchant, J. L., Weiskopf, N., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2009). Choking on the money: Reward-based performance decrements are associated with midbrain activity. Psychological Science, 20, 955–962.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02399.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reber, P. J., & Squire, L. R. (1994). Parallel brain systems for learning with and without awareness. Learning and Memory, 1, 217–229.  https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.1.4.217 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schendan, H. E., Searl, M. M., Melrose, R. J., & Stern, C. E. (2003). An fMRI study of the role of the medial temporal lobe in implicit and explicit sequence learning. Neuron, 37, 1013–1025.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00123-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Song, S., & Cohen, L. (2014). Impact of conscious intent on chunking during motor learning. Learning and Memory, 21, 449–451.  https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.035824.114 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Verwey, W. B., Lammens, R., & van Honk, J. (2002). On the role of the SMA in the discrete sequence production task: A TMS study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1268–1276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00221-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Willingham, D. B. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 105, 558–584.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.3.558 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Willingham, D. B., Salidis, J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Direct comparison of neural systems mediating conscious and unconscious skill learning. Journal of Neurophysiology, 88, 1451–1460.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00461.2001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Worthy, D. A., Markman, A. B., & Maddox, W. T. (2009). What is pressure? Evidence for social pressure as a type of regulatory focus. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 344–349.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wulf, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 648–660.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wymbs, N. F., & Grafton, S. T. (2015). The human motor system supports sequence-specific representations over multiple training-dependent timescales. Cerebral Cortex, 25, 4213–4225.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhu144 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparitive Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.School of Information StudiesSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  4. 4.Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  5. 5.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  6. 6.Department of NeuroscienceNorthwestern UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations