Open-loop, closed-loop and compensatory control: performance improvement under pressure in a rhythmic task

Abstract

According to explicit monitoring theories, the phenomenon of choking under pressure is due to actors focusing their attention on the execution of the skill. This step-by-step perceptually guided control may then interfere with automatic execution. In order to examine the changes in control at the sensorimotor level, we examined the rhythmic task of ball bouncing which affords detailed quantification of indicators of control based on previous research. The hypothesis was that under psychological pressure perceptually guided control should lead to decreased performance due to over-emphasis on closed-loop control and decreased compensatory control. In two experiments of different difficulty psychological stress was induced via setting up a fake competition. Results showed that, contrary to the hypothesis, performance accuracy and consistency improved together with an increase in compensatory control. Indicators for open- and closed-loop processes did not change. Only under more challenging conditions in Experiment 2, enhanced performance under pressure was accompanied by more active, closed-loop and less passive control. The results are discussed in light of task demands and the continuous rhythmic nature of the task: in more challenging tasks, control appears to be more prone to disturbance due to psychological stress. The different control demands in continuous rhythmic tasks may be less prone to interference due to psychological stress than in discrete tasks.

The effect of stereotype threat on performance of a rhythmic motor skill.

“…For example, DeCaro et al (2011) argue that in Beilock et al's (2006) golf putting task and in Chalabaev et al's (2008) soccer dribbling task expert performance was debilitated because stereotype threat led these participants to monitor their well-learned behaviors. However, in Ehrlenspiel et al (2010) and in Experiment 3 of the current research, participants had learned to perform the task, which facilitated, not debilitated performance. Ehrlenspiel et al (2010) suggested that this facilitated performance of their threatened participants may have been the result of the rhythmic nature of the task, which might make it less susceptible to the effects of explicit monitoring.…”

“…The participants then performed another 32 trials of the task. Ehrlenspiel et al (2010) found that the participants subject to performance pressure improved more from day 1 to day 2 than participants in the control group. This finding is consistent with the mere effort account in that the participants learned to perform the task on day 1.…”

“…Ehrlenspiel, Wei and Sternad (2010) faced a similar problem in previous research using the same task. In their first experiment, participants learned to perform the ball bouncing task over the course of 32 trials on the first day.…”

“…Thus, in a second experiment, Ehrlenspiel et al (2010) introduced perturbations to the flight of the ball on all trials of Day 2. These perturbations were too large to be self-correcting due to dynamic stability.…”

Comparing Methods of Detecting Mind Wandering While Driving

“…Based on the observation that focusing attention on automatized tasks frequently decreases performance (referred to as choking; see Ehrlenspiel, Wei, & Sternad, 2010;Koedijker & Mann, 2015), it was hypothesized, as assessed by operational control metrics, that driving performance would be less variable while mind wandering than alert. Specifically, it was expected that speed variability, lane deviation, lateral position variability and steering reversal rate would be lower when mind wandering.…”