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

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.

[1]  Matthew J. C. Crump,et al.  Provided for Non-commercial Research and Educational Use Only. Not for Reproduction, Distribution or Commercial Use. Hierarchical Control of Cognitive Processes: the Case for Skilled Typewriting , 2022 .

[2]  Sian L. Beilock,et al.  When High-Powered People Fail , 2005, Psychological science.

[3]  Scott T Grafton,et al.  The Human Motor System Supports Sequence-Specific Representations over Multiple Training-Dependent Timescales. , 2015, Cerebral cortex.

[4]  Elger L. Abrahamse,et al.  Control of automated behavior: insights from the discrete sequence production task , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[5]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[6]  R. Baumeister Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  R. Masters Knowledge, knerves and know-how: The role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure , 1992 .

[8]  D. Mcintyre,et al.  Psychological, muscular and kinematic factors mediate performance under pressure. , 2010, Psychophysiology.

[9]  Sian L. Beilock,et al.  When paying attention becomes counterproductive: impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[10]  J. Gabrieli,et al.  Direct comparison of neural systems mediating conscious and unconscious skill learning. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  Daniel B. Willingham,et al.  A Neuropsychological Theory of Motor Skill Learning , 2004 .

[12]  Sunbin Song,et al.  Impact of conscious intent on chunking during motor learning , 2014, Learning & memory.

[13]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Attention and stimulus characteristics determine the locus of motor-sequence encoding. A PET study. , 1997, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[14]  G. Kimble,et al.  The problem of volition. , 1970, Psychological review.

[15]  Geoffrey M. Boynton,et al.  Efficient Design of Event-Related fMRI Experiments Using M-Sequences , 2002, NeuroImage.

[16]  Russell A Poldrack,et al.  Modulation of competing memory systems by distraction. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  Rob Gray,et al.  From attentional control to attentional spillover: a skill-level investigation of attention, movement, and performance outcomes. , 2012, Human movement science.

[18]  Karolina Janacsek,et al.  Implicit sequence learning and working memory: Correlated or complicated? , 2013, Cortex.

[19]  Justin T. Maxwell,et al.  The implicit benefit of learning without errors , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[20]  Nina Mazar,et al.  Large stakes and big mistakes , 2009 .

[21]  R. Baumeister,et al.  A review of paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental tests , 1986 .

[22]  Jack van Honk,et al.  On the role of the SMA in the discrete sequence production task: a TMS study , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[23]  R. Yerkes,et al.  The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit‐formation , 1908 .

[24]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Neural Substrates of Response-based Sequence Learning using fMRI , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[25]  D. Hassabis,et al.  Choking on the Money , 2009, Psychological science.

[26]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005) , 2008 .

[27]  S. Keele,et al.  The cognitive and neural architecture of sequence representation. , 2003, Psychological review.

[28]  Sian L. Beilock,et al.  On the fragility of skilled performance: what governs choking under pressure? , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[29]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Functional Mapping of Sequence Learning in Normal Humans , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Out of control: Diminished prefrontal activity coincides with impaired motor performance due to choking under pressure , 2015, NeuroImage.

[31]  L. Squire,et al.  Parallel brain systems for learning with and without awareness. , 1994, Learning & memory.

[32]  C. Stern,et al.  An fMRI Study of the Role of the Medial Temporal Lobe in Implicit and Explicit Sequence Learning , 2003, Neuron.

[33]  R. Gray Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: expertise differences, choking, and slumps. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[34]  Scott T Grafton,et al.  Multifaceted aspects of chunking enable robust algorithms. , 2014, Journal of neurophysiology.

[35]  S. Shimojo,et al.  The Effects of Incentive Framing on Performance Decrements for Large Monetary Outcomes: Behavioral and Neural Mechanisms , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[36]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Abstract and Effector-Specific Representations of Motor Sequences Identified with PET , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[37]  Marci S. DeCaro,et al.  Choking under pressure: multiple routes to skill failure. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[38]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Neural Mechanisms Underlying Paradoxical Performance for Monetary Incentives Are Driven by Loss Aversion , 2012, Neuron.

[39]  M. Eysenck,et al.  Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. , 2007, Emotion.

[40]  B. P. Lewis,et al.  Thinking about Choking? Attentional Processes and Paradoxical Performance , 1997, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[41]  W. Prinz,et al.  Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: A review , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[42]  Darrell A. Worthy,et al.  What is pressure? Evidence for social pressure as a type of regulatory focus , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[43]  Tim Curran,et al.  Attentional and Nonattentional Forms of Sequence Learning , 1993 .

[44]  J. Krakauer,et al.  An Implicit Plan Overrides an Explicit Strategy during Visuomotor Adaptation , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[45]  Sian L. Beilock,et al.  Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.