ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Building a transdisciplinary expert consensus on the cognitive drivers of performance under pressure: An international multi-panel Delphi study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transcutaneous and transcranial electrical stimulation for enhancing military performance: an update and systematic review.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Pooled it
- Distinguishing Mood and Emotion: Implications for High-Performance Regulation.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Mindsets impact training adaptation and high-pressure performance: beliefs and perceptions of professionals working in elite sport and mission critical teams.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Enhancement of modern defense capabilities by convergence of cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Cognitive fitness and mental health outcomes following COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mapping 50 Years of Sport Psychology-Performance Meta-Analyses: A PRISMA-ScR Scoping Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Understanding sleep health challenges of defence shift workers to design a digital, sleep and circadian management tool.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- SleepSync: Early Testing of a Personalised Sleep-Wake Management Smartphone Application for Improving Sleep and Cognitive Fitness in Defence Shift Workers.Clocks & sleep · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a Virtual Reality Platform to Train Stress Management Skills for a Defense Workforce: Multisite, Mixed Methods Feasibility Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Observational
- Cognitive fitness modulates gender differences in sleep and mental health among competitive athletes under chronic stress.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Association between sports expertise and visual attention in male and female soccer players.PeerJ · 2023Article
- An app-enhanced cognitive fitness training program for athletes: The rationale and validation protocol.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
66 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.