Choking interventions in sports: A systematic review

Figures & data

Figure 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) chart of search strategy.

Table 1. Summary of included studies.

Reference	Design	Participants	Sample size (Female)	Age (years)	Competitive standard	Pressure manipulation	Quality assessment
I. Distraction-based interventions
Hazell et al., 2014	Experimental	Soccer players	20 (0)	19.5	Semi-professional	Ego relevance, videotaping	2
Lautenbach et al., 2015	Experimental	Tennis players	29 (14)	24.0	Not reported	Serial subtraction task, number sequencing task	2
Mesagno et al., 2008, Case 1	Single-case design	Tenpin bowler	1 Man	21	Club	Videotaping, audience, rewards	3
Mesagno et al., 2008, Case 2	Single-case design	Tenpin bowler	1 Man	41	Club	Videotaping, audience, rewards	3
Mesagno et al., 2008, Case 3	Single-case design	Tenpin bowler	1 Woman	28	Club	Videotaping, audience, rewards	3
Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010	Experimental	Australian football players	60 (0)	22.9	Regional	Audience, rewards	2
Mesagno, Hill, et al., 2015	Experimental	Tenpin bowlers	36 (not reported)	40.5	Club	Actual competition	2
II. Self-focus-based interventions
Ashford & Jackson, 2010, Study 1	Experimental	Field-hockey players	34 (18)	22.0	Collegiate	Ego relevance, videotaping	2
Ashford & Jackson, 2010, Study 2	Experimental	Field-hockey players	30 (14)	21.5	Collegiate	Ego relevance, videotaping	2
Balk et al., 2013	Experimental	Golfers	38 (12)	59.6	Club	Ego relevance, videotaping, competition, rewards	2
Beckmann et al., 2013, Study 1	Experimental	Soccer players	29 (0)	24.3	Semi-professional	Audience, competition, rewards	2
Beckmann et al., 2013, Study 2	Experimental	Taekwondo fighters	19 (6)	15.6	Elite	Ego relevance, videotaping	3
Beckmann et al., 2013, Study 3	Experimental	Badminton players	18 (6)	35.6	Regional	Ego relevance, videotaping, competition, rewards	2
Bobrownicki et al., 2015	Experimental	Students	21 (0)	23.7	Trained novices	Heights	2
Gröpel & Beckmann, 2017a, Study 1	Quasi-experimental	Gymnasts	28 (15)	22.9	Collegiate	Actual competition	3
Gröpel & Beckmann, 2017a, Study 2	Experimental	Gymnasts	21 (21)	13.8	Regional	Audience, competition, rewards	3
Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008	Experimental	Golfers	20 (1)	25.3	Club	Competition, rewards	2
Jackson et al., 2006, Study 1	Experimental	Field-hockey players	34 (19)	22.2	Regional	Ego relevance, videotaping	2
Jackson et al., 2006, Study 2	Experimental	Soccer players	25 (0)	20.4	Collegiate	Ego relevance, videotaping	2
Land & Tenenbaum, 2012	Experimental	Golfers	20 (15)	21.2	Not reported	Ego relevance, videotaping	2
Lewis & Linder, 1997	Experimental	Students	112 (0)	Not reported	Trained novices	Rewards	2
Liao & Masters, 2001, Study 2	Experimental	Students	36 (20)	21.5	Trained novices	Ego relevance	2
Masters, 1992	Experimental	Students	40 (not reported)	27.2	Trained novices	Ego relevance, rewards	2
Mesagno et al., 2009, Case 1	Single-case design	Basketball player	1 Woman	18	Regional	Videotaping, audience, rewards	3
Mesagno et al., 2009, Case 2	Single-case design	Basketball player	1 Woman	19	Regional	Videotaping, audience, rewards	3
Mesagno et al., 2009, Case 3	Single-case design	Basketball player	1 Woman	20	Regional	Videotaping, audience, rewards	3
Moore et al., 2012	Experimental	Students	40 (not reported)	19.6	Trained novices	Ego relevance, competition, rewards	2
Mullen et al., 2015	Experimental	Students	24 (0)	19.6	Trained novices	Ego relevance, competition	2
Nibbeling et al., 2012	Experimental	Dart players	11 (0)	34.2	Not reported	Heights	2
Ring et al., 2015	Experimental	Golfers	24 (0)	22.0	Club	Ego relevance, competition, rewards	2
Schücker et al., 2010	Experimental	Students	51 (18)	32.7	Trained novices	Ego relevance	2
Schücker et al., 2013	Experimental	Students	41 (18)	21.4	Trained novices	Competition, rewards	2
Vine & Wilson, 2010	Experimental	Students	14 (0)	20.3	Trained novices	Ego relevance, competition, rewards	1
Vine et al., 2011	Experimental	Golfers	22 (0)	21.0	Club	Ego relevance, competition, rewards; actual competition	2
Vine & Wilson, 2011	Experimental	Students	20 (0)	20.5	Trained novices	Ego relevance, competition, rewards	2
Vine et al., 2013	Experimental	Students	45 (not reported)	21.2	Trained novices	Ego relevance, competition, rewards	2
Wood & Wilson, 2011	Experimental	Soccer players	20 (not reported)	20.2	Collegiate	Competition, rewards	2
Wood & Wilson, 2012	Experimental	Soccer players	20 (not reported)	20.2	Collegiate	Competition, rewards	2
Zhu et al., 2011, Study 2	Experimental	Students	18 (not reported)	22.0	Trained novices	Ego relevance, videotaping	2
III. Acclimatisation interventions
Balk et al., 2013	Experimental	Golfers	38 (12)	59.6	Club	Ego relevance, videotaping, competition, rewards	2
Beilock & Carr, 2001, Study 3	Experimental	Students	54 (not reported)	Not reported	Trained novices	Rewards	2
Beilock & Carr, 2001, Study 4	Experimental	Students	32 (not reported)	Not reported	Trained novices	Rewards	2
Bell et al., 2013	Quasi-experimental	Cricket players	41 (0)	16.9	Elite	Actual competition	3
Beseler et al., 2016	Experimental	Australian football players	12 (0)	20.6	Semi-professional	Ego relevance, videotaping, competition, rewards	1
Lewis & Linder, 1997	Experimental	Students	112 (0)	Not reported	Trained novices	Rewards	2
Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009, Study 1	Quasi-experimental	Basketball players	17 (0)	23.0	Semi-professional	Ego relevance, videotaping, competition, rewards	4
Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009, Study 2	Experimental	Dart players	17 (0)	26.0	Club	Heights	2
Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010	Experimental	Students	24 (8)	22.5	Trained novices	Rewards, heights	2
Reeves et al., 2007	Experimental	Soccer players	37 (37)	17.5	Collegiate	Ego relevance, videotaping, competition, rewards	2

Note: Quality assessment of experimental and quasi-experimental studies: 1 = one methodological criterion met (25%); 2 = two methodological criteria met (50%); 3 = three methodological criteria met (75%); 4 = four (all) methodological criteria met (100%). Quality assessment of single-case studies: 1 = one methodological criterion met (33%); 2 = two methodological criteria met (66%); 3 = three (all) methodological criteria met (100%).

Table 2. Summary of study results.

Reference	Performance task	Intervention	Key findings
I. Distraction-based interventions
Hazell et al., 2014	Penalty shots (soccer)	PPR	No significant differences between PPR and control groups in shot accuracy.
Lautenbach et al., 2015	Tennis serves	PPR	Tennis players worsened their serving performance in an initial, high-pressure phase with no PPR (when compared with a pressure-free baseline), but the performance remained stable after the introduction of a PPR under pressure.
Mesagno et al., 2008, Case 1	Bowling accuracy	PPR	The athlete improved bowling accuracy (19%) using PPR under pressure compared to an initial, high-pressure phase with no PPR.
Mesagno et al., 2008, Case 2	Bowling accuracy	PPR	The athlete improved bowling accuracy (31%) using PPR under pressure compared to an initial, high-pressure phase with no PPR.
Mesagno et al., 2008, Case 3	Bowling accuracy	PPR	The athlete improved bowling accuracy (38%) using PPR under pressure compared to an initial, high-pressure phase with no PPR.
Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010	Football shots (Australian football)	PPR	Participants in all four PPR conditions (deep breathing, cue words, temporal consistency, and a combination of these) improved shot accuracy under pressure, whereas control participants worsened shot accuracy.
Mesagno, Hill, et al., 2015	In-game performance (bowling)	PPR	Bowling league scores improved in the post-intervention testing, but there were no significant differences between PPR and control groups (no interaction effect).
II. Self-focus-based interventions
Ashford & Jackson, 2010, Study 1	Field-hockey dribbling	Fluency priming	Participants dribbled significantly faster under pressure when they were primed with fluency words than in a control (non-priming) condition. Dribbling accuracy in the priming condition was better than that in the control condition regardless of pressure.
Ashford & Jackson, 2010, Study 2	Field-hockey dribbling	Fluency priming	Participants dribbled faster when they were primed with fluency words, but also when primed with neutral words, than in non-priming condition (regardless of pressure). The priming manipulations had no effect on dribbling accuracy.
Balk et al., 2013^a	Golf putt	Task-irrelevant cues	Golfers who focused on task-irrelevant cue (a favourite song) instead of on golf putting improved putting accuracy under pressure, whereas control participants ‘choked’.
Beckmann et al., 2013, Study 1	Penalty shots (soccer)	LH contractions	Participants who used LH contractions prior to executing penalty shots under pressure were as accurate as in baseline, whereas control participants decreased shooting accuracy.
Beckmann et al., 2013, Study 2	Taekwondo kicks	LH contractions	Participants who used LH contractions improved performance under pressure, whereas control participants worsened performance.
Beckmann et al., 2013, Study 3	Badminton serves	LH contractions	All participants experienced choking in the first high-pressure phase with no intervention. In the second high-pressure phase using a LH contraction intervention, participants improved serving accuracy, whereas control participants continued to ‘choke’.
Bobrownicki et al., 2015	High jump	Analogy learning	No significant differences between analogy learning and explicit learning groups when high jumping under pressure.
Gröpel & Beckmann, 2017a, Study 1	In-game performance (gymnastics)	LH contractions	LH contractions group performed better than comparison group in the final of the German university championship in artistic gymnastics.
Gröpel & Beckmann, 2017a, Study 2	Beam exercise (gymnastics)	LH contractions	Gymnasts who used LH contractions prior to balance beam exercise performed better than control participants in a simulated competition under pressure.
Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008^b	Golf putt	Fluency cues, task-irrelevant cues	Under increased pressure, putting accuracy deteriorated when participants focused on their putting technique, but did not deteriorate when using either fluency or task-irrelevant thoughts. Irrespective of pressure, fluency thoughts were more beneficial for putting accuracy than task-irrelevant thoughts and task-specific (technical) thoughts.
Jackson et al., 2006, Study 1	Field-hockey dribbling	Dual task	Participants dribbled significantly faster in the dual-task condition than in the single-task and skill-focus conditions.
Jackson et al., 2006, Study 2	Soccer dribbling	Process goal	Setting a process goal regarding ball-dribbling behaviour had no differential effect on dribbling performance under pressure.
Land & Tenenbaum, 2012^b	Golf putt	Dual task (irrelevant), Dual task (relevant)	Golfers made significantly more putts under pressure during both dual-task conditions (irrelevant and relevant to golf putt) than under single-task condition. No differential effect between the task-irrelevant and task-relevant conditions were found.
Lewis & Linder, 1997^a	Golf putt	Dual task	Participants in dual-task condition made more accurate putts under pressure than control participants.
Liao & Masters, 2001, Study 2	Topspin hitting (table tennis)	Analogy learning	The performance of analogy learning group did not deteriorate under pressure, whereas the performance of explicit learning group declined under pressure.
Masters, 1992	Golf putt	Implicit learning	Implicit learning group showed no degradation of performance in high-pressure pressure, in contrast to the explicit learning and control groups.
Mesagno et al., 2009, Case 1	Basketball free throw	Dual task	The athlete improved shooting percentage by 18% using a dual-task intervention under pressure compared to an initial, high-pressure phase with no intervention.
Mesagno et al., 2009, Case 2	Basketball free throw	Dual task	The athlete improved shooting percentage by 22% using a dual-task intervention under pressure compared to an initial, high-pressure phase with no intervention.
Mesagno et al., 2009, Case 3	Basketball free throw	Dual task	The athlete improved shooting percentage by 18% using a dual-task intervention under pressure compared to an initial, high-pressure phase with no intervention.
Moore et al., 2012	Golf putt	QE training	QE-trained group performed more accurately and displayed more effective gaze control than control group when putting under pressure.
Mullen et al., 2015^b	Race-driving task	Process goal (holistic), Process goal (part)	Holistic process goal group outperformed the part process goal intervention group under pressure. But there were no significant differences between the intervention groups and a control group.
Nibbeling et al., 2012	Dart throw	Dual task	Dart scores remained stable under pressure. Dart scores did not differ between dual-task and control conditions.
Ring et al., 2015	Golf putt	Neurofeedback training	No significant differences between neurofeedback and control groups in putting accuracy.
Schücker et al., 2010	Golf swing	Analogy learning	No significant differences between analogy learning and explicit learning groups in the quality of the full swing in golf under pressure.
Schücker et al., 2013	Golf putt	Analogy learning	No significant differences between analogy learning and explicit learning groups in putting accuracy under pressure.
Vine & Wilson, 2010	Golf putt	QE training	QE-trained group maintained more effective attentional control and performed significantly better in the pressure test than a control group.
Vine et al., 2011	Golf putt (lab); In-game performance	QE training	QE-trained group outperformed control group both in a laboratory pressure test and during an actual competition.
Vine & Wilson, 2011	Basketball free throw	QE training	QE-trained participants performed more accurately under pressure and displayed more effective gaze control than control participants.
Vine et al., 2013^b	Golf putt	QE training, analogy learning	When compared to pre-pressure condition, QE-trained improved putting accuracy under pressure, whereas explicit learning group worsened performance. Analogy learning group maintained performance.
Wood & Wilson, 2011	Penalty shot (soccer)	QE training	No significant differences between QE-trained and control groups in penalty shootout under pressure.
Wood & Wilson, 2012	Penalty shot (soccer)	QE training	QE-trained group improved shooting accuracy under pressure, whereas control group displayed similar performance to baseline.
Zhu et al., 2011, Study 2	Golf putt	Implicit learning	Irrespective of pressure, implicit learning was more beneficial for putting accuracy than explicit learning.
III. Acclimatisation interventions
Balk et al., 2013^a	Golf putt	Reappraisal cues	Golfers who used cognitive reappraisal under pressure holed the same number of putts as in baseline, whereas control participants ‘choked’.
Beilock & Carr, 2001, Study 3^b	Golf putt	Distraction training, SC training	SC-trained group improved putting accuracy under pressure (as compared to baseline), whereas both distraction-trained and control groups worsened performance.
Beilock & Carr, 2001, Study 4^b	Golf putt	Distraction training, SC training	SC-trained group improved putting accuracy under pressure, whereas distraction-trained group ‘choked’.
Bell et al., 2013	In-game performance (cricket)	Anxiety training	Participants who had practised under heightened anxiety improved their competitive performance statistics, whereas performance scores for a comparison group did not differ from pretest to posttest.
Beseler et al., 2016	Football shots (Australian football)	Anxiety training	No significant effect of practising under anxiety on goal-kicking accuracy in a pressure posttest.
Lewis & Linder, 1997^a	Golf putt	SC training	Participants who had practised under heightened self-consciousness made more putts under pressure than non-adapted participants.
Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009, Study 1	Basketball free throw	Anxiety training	After training with anxiety, performance no longer deteriorated during a pressure posttest as compared to a pressure pretest, whereas a control group decreased performance.
Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009, Study 2	Dart throw	Anxiety training	Participants who had practised with anxiety maintained stable performance in a pressure posttest, whereas performance of control group deteriorated.
Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010	Dart throw	Anxiety training	Participants who had trained with anxiety performed equally well on all low-pressure, mild-pressure, and high-pressure tests, while performance of the control group deteriorated with high pressure.
Reeves et al., 2007^b	Penalty shot, breakaway situation (soccer)	Distraction training, SC training	SC-trained group improved shooting accuracy under pressure (as compared to baseline), whereas both distraction-trained and control groups worsened performance.

Note: PPR = pre-performance routine; LH = left-hand contractions; QE = quiet eye training; SC = self-consciousness training.

^aStudies that tested two interventions in two different categories. ^bStudies that tested two interventions within the same category.

*Hazell, J., Cotterill, S. T., & Hill, D. M. (2014). An exploration of pre-performance routines, self-efficacy, anxiety and performance in semi-professional soccer. European Journal of Sport Science, 14, 603–610. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.888484

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lautenbach, F., Laborde, S., Mesagno, C., Lobinger, B. H., Achtzehn, S., & Arimond, F. (2015). Nonautomated pre-performance routine in tennis: An intervention study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 27, 123–131. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2014.957364

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2008). Using a pre-performance routine to alleviate choking under pressure in “choking-susceptible” athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 439–457. doi: 10.1123/tsp.22.4.439

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mesagno, C., & Mullane-Grant, T. (2010). A comparison of different pre-performance routines as possible choking interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 343–360. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2010.491780

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mesagno, C., Hill, D. M., & Larkin, P. (2015). Examining the accuracy and in-game performance effects between pre- and post-performance routines: A mixed methods study. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 19, 85–94. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.03.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Ashford, K., & Jackson, R. C. (2010). Priming as a means of preventing skill failure under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 518–536. doi: 10.1123/jsep.32.4.518

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Balk, Y. A., Adriaanse, M. A., De Ridder, D. T., & Evers, C. (2013). Coping under pressure: Employing emotion regulation strategies to enhance performance under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35, 408–418. doi: 10.1123/jsep.35.4.408

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Beckmann, J., Gröpel, P., & Ehrlenspiel, F. (2013). Preventing motor skill failure through hemisphere-specific priming: Cases from choking under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 679–691. doi: 10.1037/a0029852

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bobrownicki, R., MacPherson, A. C., Coleman, S. G., Collins, D., & Sproule, J. (2015). Re-examining the effects of verbal instructional type on early stage motor learning. Human Movement Science, 44, 168–181. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2015.08.023

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Gröpel, P., & Beckmann, J. (2017a). A pre-performance routine to optimize competition performance in artistic gymnastics. The Sport Psychologist, 31, 199–207. doi:10.1123/tsp.2016-0054

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Gucciardi, D. F., & Dimmock, J. A. (2008). Choking under pressure in sensorimotor skills: Conscious processing or depleted attentional resources? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 45–59. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.10.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Jackson, R. C., Ashford, K. J., & Norsworthy, G. (2006). Attentional focus, dispositional reinvestment, and skilled motor performance under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 49–68. doi: 10.1123/jsep.28.1.49

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Land, W., & Tenenbaum, G. (2012). An outcome- and process-oriented examination of a golf-specific secondary task strategy to prevent choking under pressure. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 24, 303–322. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2011.642458

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937–944. doi: 10.1177/0146167297239003

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Liao, C., & Masters, R. S. W. (2001). Analogy learning: A means to implicit motor learning. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 307–319. doi: 10.1080/02640410152006081

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, knerves and know-how: The role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 343–358. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02446.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2009). Alleviating choking: The sounds of distraction. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 131–147. doi: 10.1080/10413200902795091

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Moore, L. J., Vine, S. J., Cooke, A., Ring, C., & Wilson, M. R. (2012). Quiet eye training expedites motor learning and aids performance under heightened anxiety: The roles of response programming and external attention. Psychophysiology, 49, 1005–1015. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01379.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mullen, R., Faull, A., Jones, E. S., & Kingston, K. (2015). Evidence for the effectiveness of holistic process goals for learning and performance under pressure. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 17, 40–44. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.11.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Nibbeling, N., Oudejans, R. R., & Daanen, H. A. (2012). Effects of anxiety, a cognitive secondary task, and expertise on gaze behavior and performance in a far aiming task. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 427–435. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.02.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Ring, C., Cooke, A., Kavussanu, M., McIntyre, D., & Masters, R. (2015). Investigating the efficacy of neurofeedback training for expediting expertise and excellence in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 118–127. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Schücker, L., Ebbing, L., & Hagemann, N. (2010). Learning by analogies: Implications for performance and attentional processes under pressure. Human Movement, 11, 191–199. doi: 10.2478/v10038-010-0025-z

 Google Scholar

*Schücker, L., Hagemann, N., & Strauss, B. (2013). Analogy vs. Technical learning in a golf putting task: An analysis of performance outcomes and attentional processes under pressure. Human Movement, 14, 175–184. doi: 10.2478/humo-2013-0021

 Google Scholar

*Vine, S. J., & Wilson, M. R. (2010). Quiet eye training: Effects on learning and performance under pressure. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 361–376. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2010.495106

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Vine, S. J., Moore, L. J., & Wilson, M. R. (2011). Quiet eye training facilitates competitive putting performance in elite golfers. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00008

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Vine, S. J., & Wilson, M. R. (2011). The influence of quiet eye training and pressure on attention and visuomotor control. Acta Psychologica, 136, 340–346. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.12.008

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Vine, S. J., Moore, L. J., Cooke, A., Ring, C., & Wilson, M. R. (2013). Quiet eye training: A means to implicit motor learning. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 44, 367–386. doi: 10.7352/IJSP2013.00.000

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Wood, G., & Wilson, M. R. (2011). Quiet-eye training for soccer penalty kicks. Cognitive Processing, 12, 257–266. doi: 10.1007/s10339-011-0393-0

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Wood, G., & Wilson, M. R. (2012). Quiet-eye training, perceived control and performing under pressure. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 721–728. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.05.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Zhu, F. F., Poolton, J. M., Wilson, M. R., Maxwell, J. P., & Masters, R. S. W. (2011). Neural co-activation as a yardstick of implicit motor learning and the propensity for conscious control of movement. Biological Psychology, 87, 66–73. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.02.004

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701–725. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bell, J. J., Hardy, L., & Beattie, S. (2013). Enhancing mental toughness and performance under pressure in elite young cricketers: A 2-year longitudinal intervention. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 2, 281–297. doi: 10.1037/a0033129

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Beseler, B., Mesagno, C., Young, W., & Harvey, J. (2016). Igniting the pressure acclimatisation training debate: Contradictory pilot-study evidence from Australian football. Journal of Sport Behavior, 39, 22–38.

 Google Scholar

*Oudejans, R. R., & Pijpers, J. R. (2009). Training with anxiety has a positive effect on expert perceptual–motor performance under pressure. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1631–1647. doi: 10.1080/17470210802557702

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Oudejans, R. R., & Pijpers, J. R. (2010). Training with mild anxiety may prevent choking under higher levels of anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 44–50. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.05.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Reeves, J. L., Tenenbaum, G., & Lidor, R. (2007). Choking in front of the goal: The effects of self-consciousness training. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5, 240–254. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2007.9671834

 Google Scholar