@phdthesis{Ehrlenspiel2006,
  author    = {Ehrlenspiel, Felix},
  title     = {Choking under pressure : attention and motor control in performance situations},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus-12377},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2006},
  abstract  = {When top sports performers fail or "choke" under pressure, everyone asks: why? Research has identified a number of conditions (e.g. an audience) that elicit choking and that moderate (e.g. trait-anxiety) pressure - performance relation. Furthermore, mediating processes have been investigated. For example, explicit monitoring theories link performance failure under psychological stress to an increase in attention paid to a skill and its step-by-step execution (Beilock \& Carr, 2001). Many studies have provided support for these ideas. However, so far only overt performance measures have been investigated which do not allow more thorough analyses of processes or performance strategies. But also a theoretical framework has been missing, that could (a) explain the effects of explicit monitoring on skill execution and that (b) makes predictions as to what is being monitored during execution. Consequently in this study, the nodalpoint hypothesis of motor control (Hossner \& Ehrlenspiel, 2006) was taken to predict movement changes on three levels of analysis at certain "nodalpoints" within the movement sequence. Performance in two different laboratory tasks was assessed with respect to overt performance (the observable result, for example accuracy in the target), covert performance (description of movement execution, for example the acceleration of body segements) and task exploitation (the utilization of task properties such as covariation). A fake competition (see Beilock \& Carr, 2002) was used to invoke pressure. In study 1 a ball bouncing task in a virtual-reality set-up was chosen. Previous studies (de Rugy, Wei, M{\"u}ller, \& Sternad, 2003) have shown that learners are usually able to "passively" exploit the dynamical stability of the system. According to explicit monitoring theories, choking should be expected either if the task itself evokes an "active control" (Experiment 1) or if learners are provided with explicit instructions (Experiment 2). In both experiments, participants first went through a practice phase on day 1. On day 2, following the Baseline Test participants were divided into a High-Stress or No-Stress Group for the final Performance Test. The High-Stress Group entered a fake competition. Overt performance was measured by the Absolute Error (AE) of ball amplitudes from target height; covert performance was measured by Period Modulation between successive hits and task exploitation was measured by Acceleration (AC) at ball-racket impact and Covariation (COV) of impact parameters. To evoke active control in Exp. 1 (N=20), perturbations to the ball flight were introduced. In Exp. 2 (N=39) half of the participants received explicit skill-focused instructions during learning. For overt performance, results generally show an interaction between Stress Group and Test, with better performance (i. e. lower AE) for the High-Stress group in the final Performance Test. This effect is also independent of the Instructions that participants had received during learning (Exp. 2). Similar effects were found for COV but not for AC. In study 2 a visuomotor tracking task in which participants had to pursuit a target cross that was moving on an invisible curve. This curve consisted of 3 segments of 6 turning points sequentially ordered around the x-axis. Participants learned two short movement sequences which were then concatenated to form a single sequence. It was expected that under pressure, this sequence should "fall apart" at the point of concatenation. Overt Performance was assessed by the Root Mean Square Error between target and pursuit cross as well as the Absolute Error at the turning points, covert performance was measured by the Latency from target to pursuit turning and task exploitation was measured by the temporal covariation between successive intervals between turning points. Experiment 3 (intraindividual variation) as well as Experiment 4 (interindividual variation) show performance enhancement in the pressure situation on the overt level with matching results on covert and task exploitation level. Thus, contrary to previous studies, no choking under pressure was found in any of the experiments. This may be interpreted as a failure in the experimental manipulation. But certainly also important characteristics of the task are highlighted. Choking should occur in tasks where performers do not have the time to use action or thought control strategies, that are more relevant to their "self" and that are discrete in nature.},
  language  = {en}
}