CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Sport Psychology and PerformanceNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and Testing

Building a transdisciplinary expert consensus on the cognitive drivers of performance under pressure: an international multi-panel Delphi study

Open access
Albertella, Lucy, Kirkham, Rebecca, Adler, Amy B., Crampton, John, Drummond, Sean P. A., Fogarty, Gerard J., Gross, James J., Zaichkowsky, Leonard +58 more·2023·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1017675PMC PMC9901503
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1017675

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the framework of cognitive warfare, these cognitive processes constitute the core of human cognitive capabilities that adversaries seek to influence, disrupt, or exploit.

    “In the framework of cognitive warfare, these cognitive processes constitute the core of human cognitive capabilities that adversaries seek to influence, disrupt, or exploit (Albertella et al., 2023; Ćosić et al., 2025).”

    From Enhancement of modern defense capabilities by convergence of cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence (2026) · cites this paper as Albertella et al., 2023

    The Background (page not provided) identifies cognitive factors as important to performance under pressure, including in military settings, and the Discussion describes basic cognitive processes that can be selectively targeted by training. The paper does not address cognitive warfare or say that adversaries seek to influence, disrupt, or exploit those processes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Endsley M. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society annual meeting. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, 97–101.
  2. Endsley M. R. (2017). Direct Measurement of Situation Awareness: Validity and Use of SAGAT. Situational Awareness. London: Routledge.
  3. Kelley A. Feltman K. A. Nwala E. Bernhardt K. Hayes A. Basso J.. (2019). A systematic review of cognitive enhancement interventions for use in military operations.
  4. Kucina T. Wells L. Lewis I. De Salas K. Kohl A. Palmer M.. (2022). A solution to the reliability paradox for decision-conflict tasks. PMC10115879 37076456
  5. NIMH (2011). Cognitive systems: Workshop proceedings. Available at: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/research-funded-by-nimh/rdoc/cognitive-systems-workshop-proceedings
  6. Wells L. Kucina T. Kohl A. Lewis I. De Salas K. Aidman E.. (2021). “A flexible gaming environment for reliably measuring cognitive control,” in Proceedings of the 2021 Human Factors and Medicine Research Symposium-Applying Neuroscience to Performance: From Rehabilitation to Human Cognitive Augmentation.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Albertella, L., Kirkham, R., Adler, A. B., Crampton, J., Drummond, S. P. A., Fogarty, G. J., Gross, J. J., Zaichkowsky, L., Andersen, J. P., Bartone, P. T., Boga, D., Bond, J. W., Brunyé, T. T., Campbell, M. J., Ciobanu, L. G., Clark, S. R., Crane, M. F., Dietrich, A., Doty, T. J., Driskell, J. E., Fahsing, I., Fiore, S. M., Flin, R., Funke, J., Gatt, J. M., Hancock, P. A., Harper, C., Heathcote, A., Heaton, K. J., Helsen, W. F., Hussey, E. K., Jackson, R. C., Khemlani, S., Killgore, W. D. S., Kleitman, S., Lane, A. M., Loft, S., MacMahon, C., Marcora, S. M., McKenna, F. P., Meijen, C., Moulton, V., Moyle, G. M., Nalivaiko, E., O'Connor, D., O’Conor, D., Patton, D., Piccolo, M. D., Ruiz, C., Schücker, L., Smith, R. A., Smith, S. J. R., Sobrino, C., Stetz, M., Stewart, D., Taylor, P., Tucker, A. J., van Stralen, H., Vickers, J. N., Visser, T. A. W., Walker, R., Wiggins, M. W., Williams, A. M., Wong, L., Aidman, E., & Yücel, M.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (US)
  • Australian Psychological Society (AU)
  • University of Southern Queensland (AU)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • National Defense University (US)
  • Combat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center (US)
  • University of Limerick (IE)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • American University of Beirut (LB)
  • Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (US)
  • Florida Maxima (United States) (US)
  • Norwegian Police University College (NO)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • Robert Gordon University (GB)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (US)
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • United States Department of Defense (US)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • United States Naval Research Laboratory (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Wolverhampton (GB)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • St Mary's University Twickenham London (GB)
  • Regent's University London (GB)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • Department of Defence (AU)
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (GB)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (US)
  • United States Army War College (US)
  • Defence Science and Technology Group (AU)
Corresponding author
Albertella, Lucy
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2023-01-18
Volume
13
Pages
1017675-1017675
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1017675
PMC
PMC9901503
OpenAlex
W4317211308
Cited by
22
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
FWCI
10.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2023-06-20)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • St Mary's University Repository (St Mary's University Twickenham London) (acceptedVersion)
  • UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Access Institutional Repository at Robert Gordon University (Robert Gordon University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Wolverhampton Intellectual Repository and E-Theses (University of Wolverhampton) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Monash University
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (#APP1117188, 1122816)
  • Australian Research Council
  • Science Foundation Ireland (13/RC/2094_P2)
  • European Regional Development Fund
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • University of Sydney
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
performance under pressure, expert consensus, Research Domain Criteria, cognitive control, working memory, attention, arousal, response inhibition, self-knowledge, military performance, competitive sports

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review