The ability to perform optimally under pressure is critical across many occupations, including the military, first responders, and competitive sport, and depends on a range of cognitive factors. How common these key performance factors are across application 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. International experts were recruited from four performance domains (i. Defence; ii. Competitive Sport; iii. Civilian High-stakes; and iv. Performance Neuroscience). Experts rated constructs from the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework (in addition to 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. Sixty-eight experts completed the first Delphi round, with 94% of experts retained by the end of the Delphi process. Seven of the ten constructs that reached transdisciplinary consensus came from the Cognitive Systems domain including: 1) Attention; 2) Cognitive Control—Goal Selection, Updating, Representation & Maintenance; 3) Cognitive Control—Performance Monitoring; 4) Cognitive Control—Response Selection & Inhibition/Suppression; 5) Working memory—Flexible Updating; 6) Working memory—Active Maintenance; and 7) Working memory—Interference Control. Other constructs that reached transdisciplinary consensus were Self-knowledge, Arousal, and Shifting (an expert-suggested construct). Our results identify a set of transdisciplinary neuroscience-informed constructs, validated through Delphi consensus. This expert consensus is critical to standardising cognitive assessment and informing mechanism-targeted interventions in the broader field of human performance optimisation.
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.
New technologies such as Virtual Reality (VR) and Mobile Apps are increasingly being developed and trialled therapeutically to help treat anxiety disorders. Despite this increasing market, there is little research on how the public perceive the incorporation of these innovative technologies in anxiety treatment. This study aimed to gauge the public’s perceptions of using VR and mobile apps as a form of mental health treatment for anxiety. To do this, a survey was disseminated to those aged 18 to 35 without mental illness via social media and poster advertisements. Results demonstrated that most individuals had limited knowledge on VR and mobile apps’ use in mental health, but overall demonstrated positive perceptions and high optimism regarding its potential use. Neither treatment modality was perceived as being as effective as standard treatment, however participants were willing to use either modality if recommended by a therapist, and use both in conjunction with standard treatment. Participants demonstrated a willingness to use a mobile app as a first point of contact. These findings have implications for the way in which these technologies are rolled out to the public.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.