ArticleSocial cognitive and affective neuroscience2019
Reappraisal of incentives ameliorates choking under pressure and is correlated with changes in the neural representations of incentives.
Article in Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Instrumental-Motor Transfer: The Relative Value of Competing Movement Goals Modulates Implicit Motor Learning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Striatal and cerebellar interactions during reward-based motor performance.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Striatal and cerebellar interactions during reward-based motor performance.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- High stakes slow responding, but do not help overcome Pavlovian biases in humans.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- The moderating role of the late positive potential in the link between attachment anxiety and emotion regulation difficulties.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Under pressure: the interaction between high-stakes contexts and individual differences in decision-making in humans and non-human species.Animal cognition · 2023Review
- Factors of choking under pressure in musicians.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been observed that the performing for high stakes can, paradoxically, lead to uncharacteristically poor performance. Here we investigate a novel approach to attenuating such 'choking under pressure' by instructing participants performing a demanding motor task that rewards successful performance with a monetary gain, to reappraise this incentive as a monetary loss for unsuccessful performance. We show that when participants applied this simple strategy, choking was significantly reduced. This strategy also influenced participants' neural and physiological activity. When participants reappraised the incentive as a potential monetary loss, the representation of the magnitude of the incentive in the ventral striatum Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent (BOLD) signal was attenuated. In addition, individual differences in the degree of attenuation of the neural response to incentive predicted the effectiveness of the reappraisal strategy in reducing choking. Furthermore, participants' skin conductance changed in proportion to the magnitude of the incentive being played for, and was exaggerated on high incentive trials on which participants failed. Reappraisal of the incentive abolished this exaggerated skin conductance response. This represents the first experimental association of sympathetic arousal with choking. Taken together, these results suggest that reappraisal of the incentive is indeed a promising intervention for attenuating choking under pressure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.