Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 18:13:1017675.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1017675. eCollection 2022.

Building a transdisciplinary expert consensus on the cognitive drivers of performance under pressure: An international multi-panel Delphi study

Lucy Albertella  1 Rebecca Kirkham  1 Amy B Adler  2 John Crampton  3 Sean P A Drummond  1 Gerard J Fogarty  4 James J Gross  5 Leonard Zaichkowsky  6 Judith P Andersen  7 Paul T Bartone  8 Danny Boga  9 Jeffrey W Bond  3 Tad T Brunyé  10 Mark J Campbell  11 Liliana G Ciobanu  12 Scott R Clark  12 Monique F Crane  13 Arne Dietrich  14 Tracy J Doty  2 James E Driskell  15 Ivar Fahsing  16 Stephen M Fiore  17 Rhona Flin  18 Joachim Funke  19 Justine M Gatt  20   21 P A Hancock  17 Craig Harper  1 Andrew Heathcote  22   23 Kristin J Heaton  24 Werner F Helsen  25 Erika K Hussey  26 Robin C Jackson  27 Sangeet Khemlani  28 William D S Killgore  29 Sabina Kleitman  30 Andrew M Lane  31 Shayne Loft  32 Clare MacMahon  33 Samuele M Marcora  34 Frank P McKenna  35 Carla Meijen  36 Vanessa Moulton  37 Gene M Moyle  38 Eugene Nalivaiko  22   23 Donna O'Connor  39 Dorothea O'Conor  40 Debra Patton  41 Mark D Piccolo  42 Coleman Ruiz  43 Linda Schücker  44 Ron A Smith  45 Sarah J R Smith  46 Chava Sobrino  47 Melba Stetz  48 Damien Stewart  49 Paul Taylor  22   23 Andrew J Tucker  1 Haike van Stralen  50 Joan N Vickers  51 Troy A W Visser  32 Rohan Walker  22   23 Mark W Wiggins  13 Andrew Mark Williams  52 Leonard Wong  53 Eugene Aidman  22   54 Murat Yücel  1
Affiliations

Building a transdisciplinary expert consensus on the cognitive drivers of performance under pressure: An international multi-panel Delphi study

Lucy Albertella et al. Front Psychol. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Introduction: The 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.

Methods: International 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.

Results: Sixty-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.

Discussion: Our 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.

Keywords: assessment; cognition; expert consensus; high performance; transdisciplinary.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

VM was employed by Mindflex Group Ltd. JG is a stockholder in MAP Biotech Pty Ltd. SC has received speakers fees Janssen-Cilag Australia, Lundbeck Otsuka Australia, Servier Australia; Investigator Initiated research funding Janssen-Cilag Australia; Lundbeck Otsuka Australia; Advisory Boards Lundbeck Otsuka Australia. AT has received research funding from BHP, Rio Tinto, and Shell. SD is a Member of the Board of Advisors Eisai Australia Pty Ltd. MY has received payments in relation to court-, expert witness-, and/or expert review-reports. JD was employed by Florida Maxima Corporation. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A visual representation of pre-Delphi and Delphi processes.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean ranking of the ten transdisciplinary constructs. Rank order is displayed within the corresponding marker. Error bars represent 95% Confidence Intervals. N.B. * denotes Cognitive Control subconstructs. ^ denotes Working Memory subconstructs. + denotes that Shifting was an expert-suggested construct (considered to belong in the Cognitive Systems Domain). ‘Goal Selection’ = Goal Selection; Updating; Representation; Maintenance. ‘Response Selection’ = Response Selection; Inhibition/Suppression.

References

    1. Aidman E. (2020). Cognitive fitness framework: toward assessing, training and augmenting individual-difference factors underpinning high-performance cognition. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 13:466. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2019.00466, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Baker J., Lovell K., Harris N. (2006). How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ‘expert’within Delphi panel techniques. Nurs. Res. 14, 59–70. doi: 10.7748/nr2006.10.14.1.59.c6010, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barrett L. F., Gross J., Christensen T. C., Benvenuto M. (2001). Knowing what you're feeling and knowing what to do about it: mapping the relation between emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognit. Emot. 15, 713–724. doi: 10.1080/02699930143000239 - DOI
    1. Bartone P. T., Adler A. B., Vaitkus M. A. (1998). Dimensions of psychological stress in peacekeeping operations. Mil. Med. 163, 587–593. doi: 10.1093/milmed/163.9.587, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Biggs A. T., Pettijohn K. A. (2022). The role of inhibitory control in shoot/don’t-shoot decisions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 75, 536–549. doi: 10.1177/17470218211041923, PMID: - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources