Perceptual-motor learning benefits from increased stress and anxiety

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to manipulate psychological stress and anxiety to investigate effects on ensuing perceptual-motor learning. Thirty-six participants attended two experimental sessions separated by 24 h. In the first session, participants were randomized to either a mental arithmetic task known to increase stress and anxiety levels or a control condition and subsequently completed training on a speeded precision pinch task. Learning of the pinch task was assessed at the second session. Those exposed to the high stress-anxiety mental arithmetic task prior to training reported elevated levels of both stress and anxiety and demonstrated shorter movement times and improved retention of movement accuracy and movement variability. Response execution processes appear to benefit from elevated states of stress and anxiety immediately prior to training even when elicited by an unrelated task.

Full text

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 1
Running head: STRESS, ANXIETY AND PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR LEARNING
PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR LEARNING BENEFITS FROM INCREASED STRESS AND
ANXIETY
Brenton Hordacre1, Maarten A. Immink2, Michael C. Ridding1 and Susan Hillier2
1 The Robinson Research Institute, School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University
of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5000
2School of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471 Adelaide SA 5001
Corresponding author:
Maarten A. Immink
Email: maarten.immink@unisa.edu.au
Tel: +61 8 8302 2675
Fax: +61 8 8302 2853
Keywords: Psychological stress, anxiety, motor learning, learning, perceptual motor
performance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 2
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to manipulate psychological stress and
anxiety to investigate effects on ensuing perceptual-motor learning. Thirty-six participants
attended two experimental sessions separated by 24 hours. In the first session, participants
were randomised to either a mental arithmetic task known to increase stress and anxiety
levels or a control condition and subsequently completed training on a speeded precision
pinch task. Learning of the pinch task was assessed at the second session. Those exposed to
the high stress-anxiety mental arithmetic task prior to training reported elevated levels of both
stress and anxiety and demonstrated shorter movement times and improved retention of
movement accuracy and movement variability. Response execution processes appear to
benefit from elevated states of stress and anxiety immediately prior to training even when
elicited by an unrelated task.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 3
1. Introduction
The effects of stress and anxiety on performance and learning have significant
implications for human functioning. To describe the influence of stress and anxiety on
performance, theoretical frameworks have emphasized adaptation and appraisal as
moderating factors. According to the maximal adaptability model (Hancock & Warm, 1989),
adaptive responses allow for the maintenance of performance under stress, however negative
consequences and the experience of anxiety may be observed beyond the threshold for
adaptation (Blascovich, 2008; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). The process of adaptation and
appraisal to a stressor, task or challenge likely involves changes in resource availability or
allocation. These processes frequently incorporate physiological, cognitive, behavioural and
emotional dimensions to regulate response to the stressor or task (Staal, 2004). For example,
stress is associated with activation or arousal that allow for optimal information processing
(Cannon, 1915; Duffy, 1957; Gaillard, 2001; Hockey, 1997). Where appraisal of task
demands can be matched by resource availability, positive consequences would be expected.
The converse would be true when appraisal of task demands exceeds resource availability.
Unfortunately, theoretical frameworks that aim to explain the effects of stress and
anxiety on performance largely ignore the role of learning. While it is necessary to infer
learning from performance, the two are not equivalent. Performance does not necessarily
reflect learning as it is readily influenced by transient conditions, termed performance
variables. Learning on the other hand represents relatively permanent changes in the capacity
for behavior, in this case consistent improvements in performance. This distinction is
important because findings suggest that stress and anxiety are detrimental to motor
performance during early stages of learning but have no effect, or improve performance
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 4
during later learning stages (Hardy, Mullen, & Jones, 1996; Masters, 1992; Vine, Freeman,
Moore, Chandra-Ramanan, & Wilson, 2013). Previous studies are equivocal with respect to
the effects of stress and anxiety on perceptual-motor learning as some have reported benefits
(Duncko, Cornwell, Cui, Merikangas, & Grillon, 2007; Marteniuk & Wenger, 1970; Oudejans
& Pijpers, 2009; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010; Sage & Bennett, 1973), others impaired motor
learning (Cox, 1983; Noteboom, Barnholt, & Enoka, 2001), while still others have reported
no effect (Calvo, Alamo, & Ramos, 1990; Carron & Morford, 1968; Pemberton & Cox,
1981). Further clarification of the effects of stress and anxiety on motor learning is required.
Traditionally, stress is defined as a physiological response to the perceived task or
situational demands, relative to the available resources to cope with the demands (Stokes &
Kite, 2001). Anxiety is defined as negative expectations and concerns about oneself, the
situation at hand, and the potential consequences (Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981).
Although stress is commonly connected to anxiety (Tepas & Price, 2001), they may engage
different emotions representing adaptive or aversive responses to learning and performance
respectively (Watson & Clark, 1997; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). In terms of motor
performance and learning, stress might be adaptive since stress reflects a states of increased
readiness (Coombes, Gamble, Cauraugh, & Janelle, 2008; Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1998)
and preparedness for action (Schupp, Junghofer, Weike, & Hamm, 2003). For example,
higher levels of stress has been shown to subsequently improve performance on a manual
dexterity task (Wegner, Koedijker, & Budde, 2014). Anxiety, on the other hand, may be
aversive due to the threat (Blascovich, 2008; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996) that results from
exceeding the capacity of information processing or motor performance. It is the aversive
nature of anxiety that results in learning and performance decrements (Frings, Rycroft, Allen,
& Fenn, 2014; Hancock & Warm, 1989; Moore, Vine, Wilson, & Freeman, 2012; Vine et al.,
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 5
2013). For example, increased state anxiety has been associated with poorer sport
competition performance (Demoja & Demoja, 1986). Thus, stress and anxiety might have
divergent effects on motor learning, representing a continuum by which negative emotion
provides an adaptive benefit up to an optimal point beyond which further increases are
aversive and consequently disruptive (Marteniuk, 1976; Weinberg & Ragan, 1978).
However, there is an opposing view to the notion that anxiety is detrimental to
performance. Instead, anxiety might benefit learning and performance through increased
allocation of processing resources to avoid performance loss and counteract worry associated
with potential performance loss (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007). This would
be consistent with research reporting motor learning benefits from anxiety (Oudejans &
Pijpers, 2009; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010; Sage & Bennett, 1973), although these benefits
might depend on reintroduction of anxiety (Lawrence et al., 2014; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010).
Thus, even if stress and anxiety represent different negative emotions, their effects on motor
learning and performance might be comparable.
An additional complication is that the influence of stress and anxiety on motor
learning might depend on how they arise within the learning environment. Previously, stress
and anxiety have been manipulated either directly or indirectly with a variety of conditions
such as task instructions (Calvo et al., 1990), introduction of a secondary task (Hardy et al.,
1996), introduction of competitive pressure (Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009), or differing height
levels on a rock climbing wall (Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010). Some of these conditions might
confound the effects of stress with other sources of interference including those arising from
the task itself (e.g. secondary tasks require attentional demand). Thus, there is a need to better
investigate the effect of stress on motor learning by distinguishing stress influences from task
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 6
influences. Typically, the motor task itself is a proximal source of stress (Hancock & Warm,
1989) making it difficult to determine if the consequences on performance effects arise from
stress or the characteristics of the task. Rendering the task as the source of stress and anxiety
is not necessary since stress and anxiety are nonspecific responses (Selye, 1973) with after-
effects evident following removal of the stressor (Joëls, Pu, Wiegert, Oitzl, & Krugers, 2006).
Accordingly, the effects of stress and anxiety on motor learning might be better investigated
by manipulation prior to and independent from the motor task.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of induced acute
psychological stress and anxiety on subsequent perceptual-motor learning. We hypothesised
that acute psychological stress and anxiety would influence both movement preparation and
execution, resulting in a speed-accuracy trade off (Leon & Revelle, 1985) during a speeded
submaximal pinch grip task. Importantly, we used a methodological approach that induced
high levels of stress and anxiety prior to the task itself in order to more directly test their
effect on motor learning. Divergent effects on motor learning would be predicted if stress is
adaptive (i.e., increases performance capacity) while anxiety is aversive or disruptive (i.e.,
decreases performance capacity). In contrast, if stress and anxiety are both adaptive then
these negative emotions would provide comparable benefits for motor learning and
performance.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
Thirty-six apparently healthy adult volunteers (20 female, 16 male), aged 18-34 (M =
23.3, SD = 3.4) years participated in the present study. Of these participants, 31 (86.1%)
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 7
were right-hand dominant and 5 (13.9%) were left-hand dominant as assessed by the
Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Oldfield, 1971). Ethics approval was provided by the
University of South Australia Human Research Ethics Committee, and all participants
provided written informed consent prior to participating in the present study in accordance
with the Declaration of Helsinki.
2.2 Apparatus and task
To manipulate stress and anxiety prior to the motor skill training phase, a
computerized mental arithmetic task previously shown to induce acute experimental stress
(Cathcart, Petkov, & Pritchard, 2008) was used. Elevated anxiety levels have also been
reported in some individuals who undertake this stress task (Noto, Sato, Kudo, Kurata, &
Hirota, 2005). The mental arithmetic task was based on an E-Prime 2.0 (Psychology Software
Tools, Inc., Sharpsburg, PA) program running on a standard desktop PC connected to a
cathode ray tube monitor with a refresh rate of 85 Hz. Participants were seated
approximately 50 cm from the monitor during this task. In order to avoid disclosing the
purpose of the study, the mental arithmetic task was referred to as a test of cognitive ability
and participants were not informed of their allocation to high stress-anxiety or control
conditions. For both high stress-anxiety and control groups, the mental arithmetic task
involved performing addition and subtraction problems for 15 minutes where the solution
was entered using the numeric keypad on a standard keyboard. In the control group,
participants completed single-digit problems (e.g., 3 + 2). The problem remained visible on
the monitor for as long as the participant took to respond. In contrast, in the high stress-
anxiety group, participants completed problems involving three digits (e.g. 203 - 761). Each
problem was presented for only three seconds before the problem was replaced by a blank
screen. Following a random interval between 3.5- 5.5 seconds, participants were then
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 8
presented with a ‘Go! Enter your answer now’ visual signal indicating that they were to enter
their response. Participants were allowed three seconds to enter their result and failure to
respond in time resulted in presentation of an alarm tone and error visual feedback indicating,
‘you have taken too long to enter a response.’ On 35% of the problems, loud white noise was
presented through external speakers during presentation of the problem, the blank screen and
while responding. After each response, participants in both groups received visual feedback
that indicated their response time in seconds and percentage of correct responses for
completed trials. Feedback was presented for a duration based on latency of the response for
that trial. In the control group, feedback presentation duration was 6.5 seconds minus
response latency while in the high stress-anxiety group feedback presentation duration was 2
seconds minus response latency. The purpose of this was to ensure that the set number of
problems was completed in 15 minutes. It was anticipated that both experimental stress and
anxiety would be increase in the high stress-anxiety group as a result of increased task
difficulty, time pressure and random interference noise (Cathcart et al., 2008; Noto et al.,
2005).
The motor task involved a speeded precision pinch using a pinch grip manipulandum
involving two circular brass surfaces set 35 mm apart with a strain gauge transducer located
between the surfaces to measure perpendicular forces (see figure 1). A PC laptop with a
universal serial bus (USB) connected multi-function data acquisition (DAQ) device running
on a program written with LabView System Design Software (both device and software from
National Instruments Corp, Austin TX) was used to calibrate the manipulandum, measure
maximum pinch contractions, and conduct the motor task including measurement of pinch
response results for each trial. Calibration for pinch force was conducted in accordance with
manufacturer specifications by placing a known mass on the transducer while the
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 9
manipulandum was placed on a horizontal position on the desktop. The manipulandum was
secured to a desktop and the right arm of the seated participant was braced to the desktop
below the elbow so that the forearm, wrist and hand could not move. While in the brace, the
right shoulder was in adduction and the elbow and wrist were flexed. The task involved a
pulp pinch using right thumb and index finger, with both digits in a flexed position. Three
target force levels were based on 15%, 30% and 45% of the participant’s maximum pinch
force. Target force levels were identified on each trial by illumination of LED lights arranged
vertically on a small stimulus box that was glued to a transparent plastic bracket that was
centered about 50 cm in front of the participant with the stimulus box about 30 cm above the
desktop. Illumination of the bottom LED light represented the 15% target, the bottom two
LED lights represented the 30% target and three LED lights represented the 45% target.
Figure 1 demonstrates the LED lights representing target force levels. To commence a trial,
the pulp of the thumb and index finger had to be in contact with the manipulandum. The trial
started with a warning signal based on five flashes of the three LED lights. After a random
fore-period of between 900 and 1900 milliseconds, the target LED stimulus was illuminated.
Participants were instructed to perform the pinch response as accurately and as fast as
possible after presentation of the target stimulus and then release. Commencing a pinch
response prior to stimulus presentation was marked as an error trial and this trial data was not
included in data analyses (a total of 45 error trials were removed across the study; 21 for the
high stress-anxiety group and 24 for the control group). To assess movement preparation and
execution of the speeded submaximal pinch grip task performance on each trial, absolute
error, variable error, reaction time and movement time were assessed. Absolute error (AE)
was calculated as the absolute magnitude of error between the target force and peak pinch
force measured in Newton’s. Variable error (VE) was calculated as the standard deviation of
the participant’s AE for each block. Reaction time (RT) was calculated as the lapsed time, in
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 10
milliseconds, between stimulus presentation and response initiation, which was based on
pinch force exceeding 5% of maximum. Movement time (MT) was calculated as the lapsed
time between response initiation and pinch release, where pinch force became lower than the
5% threshold. After each training trial, but not retention test trial, participants received verbal
augmented feedback which included response error based on the signed difference between
target and peak force and response time, which was the sum of RT and MT in milliseconds.
2.3 Self-reported measures
To measure background life stress and trait anxiety, participants completed the
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) and the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory form Y2 (STAI-Y2) (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs,
1983) prior to measurement of maximum pinch force. The PSS is a 10 item inventory with a
4-point Likert-type scale widely used to determine how a person perceives stress in their life.
Scoring for all 10 items is between 0 and 40, with low scores indicating a low perception of
life stress. The STAI-Y2 inventory includes 20 items also with a 4-point Likert-type scale.
Higher scores are associated with increased symptoms of trait anxiety. Measurement of self-
reported state stress during induction of stress as well as training and the retention test was
based on a stress visual analogue scale (VAS) similarly to that used in previous studies
(Cathcart et al., 2008; Ritvanen, Louhevaara, Helin, Halonen, & Hänninen, 2007). The VAS
involved a 100 mm horizontal line that was anchored at each end with the description of ‘Not
at all Stressed’ on the left, and ‘Highly Stressed’ on the right. Responses on the VAS were
measured from the left anchor by an associate researcher who was not involved in this study
and was blinded to stress condition allocation. Measurement of self-reported state anxiety
involved completion of State-Trait Anxiety Inventory form Y1 (STAI-Y1; (Spielberger et al.,
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 11
1983). As with STAI-Y2, STAI-Y1 is a 20-item, 4-point Likert scale, inventory but here
higher scores are associated with greater state anxiety.
2.4 Procedure
Participants attended two experimental sessions, separated by approximately 24
hours. The first session involved completion of the experimental stress and anxiety
manipulation followed by motor training on the speeded precision pinch task. Initially,
participants were randomly allocated to either a high stress-anxiety or control version of the
mental arithmetic task. They then completed measures of perceived life stress (PSS) and
anxiety traits (STAI-Y2). Maximal pinch force was then obtained by recording the highest
force from three trials (separated by 1 minute). The maximal pinch force was used to
calculate the individual precision pinch force target levels. Next, participants completed
baseline self-reported measures of state stress (VAS) and anxiety (STAI-Y1) prior to
completion of the stress task. They then completed the 15-minute mental arithmetic challenge
task as per group allocation. For the control group this involved completion of 30 problems
with an extended 12 second rest interval after trials 10 and 20. In the high stress-anxiety
group this involved completion of 40 problems with no rest interval between trials. Following
completion of the mental arithmetic task, participants completed state stress and anxiety
inventories (pre-training time point). Motor training for the speeded precision pinch task
commenced immediately after this. Three familiarization trials were initially completed to
ensure participants understood the task. Following this, six training blocks consisting of nine
trials were conducted. In each block, each target level (15%, 30% and 45% of maximal pinch
force) was trained for 3 trials in a randomized order with the constraint that a target level was
not repeated. Individual trials were 30 seconds in duration, including time for feedback
presentation. A rest interval of 5 minutes was provided after each training block except the
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 12
final block. During the rest interval following training blocks 2 and 4, participants completed
the stress state inventory (post block 2 and post block 4 time points respectively). After
completion of training block 6, participants completed post-training state stress and anxiety
inventories. Approximately 24-hours after completion of training, allowing for motor
memory consolidation (Savion-Lemieux & Penhune, 2005; Shea, Lai, Black, & Park, 2000),
participants returned to complete a retention test. This involved a single block of nine
randomized trials with no provision of response feedback. State stress and anxiety inventories
were completed pre- and post-test.
2.5 Analysis
Participant characteristics including gender, age, hand dominance, perceived life
stress and trait anxiety scores, and maximum pinch force, were compared between high
stress-anxiety and control groups. For gender and handedness, this comparison involved a
chi-square test while other characteristics were analysed using separate independent t-tests.
For the stress induction and training phases, state anxiety scores were analyzed using a 2
(Group: high stress-anxiety, control) x 3 (Time Point: baseline, pre-training, post-training)
ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. State stress scores were analyzed using a 2
(Group: high stress-anxiety, control) x 5 (Time Point: baseline, pre-training, post-training
block 2, post-training block 4, post-training) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last
factor. For the retention test phase both state and anxiety scores for each participant were
analyzed using separate 2 (Group: high stress-anxiety, control) x 2 (Time Point: pre-test,
post-test) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. To investigate the relationship
between stress and anxiety scores we performed a Pearson correlation on the change in state
stress and anxiety levels from baseline to pre-training. To analyze pinch task performance,
mean AE, VE, RT and MT for each participant was calculated for each of the 6 training
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 13
blocks and the retention test block. Each participant’s mean AE, VE, RT and MT for the
training phase was separately submitted to a 2 (Group: high stress-anxiety, control) x 3
(Target Force: 15%, 30%, 45%) x 6 (Training Block: 1-6) ANOVA with repeated measures on
the last 2 factors. For AE, VE, RT and MT data we also investigated improvements across
training (difference in performance between training block 6 and training block 1) with a 2
(Group: high stress-anxiety, control) x 3 (Target Force: 15%, 30%, 45%) ANOVA with
repeated measures on the last factor. To investigate motor learning, we utilized two standard
approaches. First, to compare performance at the retention test participant mean AE, RT and
MT and calculated VE was separately submitted to a 2 (Group: high stress-anxiety, control) x
3 (Target Force: 15%, 30%, 45%) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. Second,
to compare performance at the retention test relative to performance achieved during training
we calculated the difference between the retention test and training block 6. AE, VE, RT and
MT data were compared between groups with a 2 (Group: high stress-anxiety, control) x 3
(Target Force: 15%, 30%, 45%) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. Data
analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY), with significance set at
p ≤ 0.05. Where required, post-hoc analyses were conducted using Duncan’s new multiple
range test and effect sizes reported as partial eta squared (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2003).
3. Results
3.1 Participant characteristics and self-reported stress and anxiety
No significant difference between groups was observed for age, gender, handedness,
perceived stress scale score, trait anxiety or maximum pinch force (see Table 1). Analysis of
state stress during mental arithmetic and training phases revealed a significant effect of Time
Point, F(4, 136) = 10.40, p<0.01, η2p = 0.23, and a significant Group by Time Point
interaction, F(4, 136) = 7.23, p<0.01, η2p = 0.18. Post-hoc analysis indicated that at baseline,
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 14
the control group (M = 25.4 mm, SD = 18.3) had a significantly higher state stress than the
high stress-anxiety group (M = 16.6 mm, SD = 18.5). At pre-training the high stress-anxiety
group (M = 37.9 mm, SD = 18.5) had significantly higher state stress scores than the control
group (M = 24.1 mm, SD = 15.9). State stress scores were not significantly different between
groups at training blocks 2 and 4 and post-training. Analysis of mental arithmetic and
training phase state anxiety scores revealed a significant main effect of Time Point, F(2, 68) =
14.52, p<0.01, η2p = 0.30, and a significant Group by Time Point interaction, F(2, 68) =
18.56, p<0.01, η2p = 0.35. As with state stress, the control group (M = 35.3, SD = 9.2)
reported significantly higher state anxiety scores at baseline than the high stress-anxiety
group (M = 28.7, SD = 5.0) while at pre-training, the high stress-anxiety group (M = 40.1, SD
= 10.4) had significantly higher state anxiety than the control group (M = 33.5, SD = 9.3).
Post-training state anxiety was not significantly different between groups. In the retention test
phase, analysis of state stress revealed no significant effect, but analysis of state anxiety
revealed a significant main effect of Group, F(1, 34) = 4.63, p<0.05, η2p = 0.12. The control
group (M = 30.6, SD = 7.1) reported significantly higher state anxiety than the high stress-
anxiety group (M = 26.2, SD = 5.6). There was a positive correlation between change in state
stress and anxiety from baseline to pre-training (r = 0.65, p<0.01). Group mean state stress
and anxiety scores are presented in Figure 2.
3.2 Motor task performance: Accuracy and variability
Figure 3 presents AE and VE averaged over Target Force for both training and the
retention test, separated by Group. Analysis of training phase AE revealed significant main
effects for Training Block, F(5, 170) = 4.03, p<0.01, η2p = 0.11, and Target Force, F(2, 170) =
16.47, p<0.01, η2p = 0.35. Post-hoc analysis revealed that AE in training block 1 was
significantly higher than training blocks 2 to 6. In addition, AE for the 45% target force level
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 15
(M = 38.09 N, SD = 29.0) was significantly higher than AE for 30% (M = 25.54 N, SD =
14.8) and 15% (M = 23.42 N, SD = 14.8) target force levels. No significant main effects or
interactions were observed for VE in the training phase. There were no main effects or
interactions for improvements in learning performance across training for AE (p=0.28) and
VE (p=0.41).
Retention test AE analysis revealed a significant main effect of Target Force, F(2, 68)
= 9.70, p<0.001, η2p = 0.22. Post-hoc analysis revealed that AE for the 45% target force (M =
47.32 N, SD = 25.5) was significantly higher than AE for 30% (M = 36.04 N, SD = 24.0) and
15% (M = 28.64 N, SD = 17.1) target force levels. A significant main effect of Target Force
was found for the retention test VE, F(2, 68) = 9.80, p<0.001, η2p = 0.22. VE for 45% target
force (M = 27.44 N, SD = 17.16) was significantly higher than VE for 30% (M = 20.56 N,
SD = 11.27) and 15% (M = 14.70 N, SD = 7.33) target force levels while VE for 30% was
significantly higher than for 15% target force level. There was a significant main effect of
Group when comparing motor performance at the retention test compared to training block 6
for AE F(1, 34) = 6.31, p<0.05, η2p = 0.16, and VE F(1, 34) = 4.03, p<0.05, η2p = 0.11.The
high stress-anxiety group demonstrated greater retention of AE (high stress-anxiety; M = 4.05
N, SD = 16.07: control; M = 17.89 N, SD = 17.34) and VE (high stress; M = -3.07 N, SD =
2.78: low stress; M = 4.47 N, SD = 2.49) compared to the control group (see Figure 3).
3.3 Motor task performance: reaction and movement time
Figure 4 presents RT and MT averaged over Target Force for both training and the
retention test, separated by Group. Analysis of training RT revealed a significant main effect
of Training Block, F(5, 170) = 5.61, p<0.01, η2p = 0.14, which was superseded by a Group by
Training Block interaction, F(5, 170) = 3.53, p<0.01, η2p = 0.10. RT was significantly shorter
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 16
in the high stress-anxiety group in training blocks 3 (high stress-anxiety M = 381.1 ms, SD =
132.0 vs. control M = 422.1 ms, SD = 141.2), 4 (high stress-anxiety M = 373.7 ms, SD =
127.7 vs. control M = 413.4 ms, SD = 145.6) and 6 (high stress-anxiety M = 372.5 ms, SD =
134.4 vs. control M = 420.8 ms, SD = 154.2). RT was not significantly different between
groups in all other training blocks. Analysis of training phase MT revealed significant main
effects of Group, F(1, 34) = 4.36, p<0.05, η2p = 0.12, Training Block, F(5, 170) = 7.84,
p<0.01, η2p = 0.19, and Target Force, F(2, 68) = 138.95, p<0.01, η2p = 0.81. Participants in the
high stress-anxiety group (M = 481.4, SD = 172.5) had significantly shorter MT than those in
the control group (M = 587.2, SD = 248.3). MT was significantly longer in training blocks 1
and 2 than MT in training blocks 4 through 6. MT for the 15% target (M = 448.6 ms, SD =
191.4) was significantly shorter than 30% (M = 541.2 ms, SD = 211.3) and 45% (M = 613.0
ms, SD = 225.2) target force levels and MT for 30% target was significantly shorter than the
45% target (95%CI; 43.9-99.7, p<0.01). There was a significant main effect of Group when
comparing improvements in learning performance across training for RT F(1, 34) = 6.81,
p<0.05, η2p = 0.17, with those in the high stress-anxiety group showing greater RT
improvements compared to the control group (high stress-anxiety; M = -84.85 ms, SD =
96.11: control; M = -1.27 ms, SD = 79.90). There was no main effects or interactions for
improvements in learning performance across training for MT (p=0.42) (see figure 4).
Analysis of the retention test RT revealed no significant main effects or interactions.
However, analysis of the retention test MT revealed a significant main effect of Group, F(1,
34) = 6.33, p<0.05, η2p = 0.16, Target Force, F(2, 68) = 35.89, p<0.01, η2p = 0.52. Those in
the high stress-anxiety group (M = 453.8 ms, SD = 148.3) prior to training had significantly
shorter MT at the retention test than those in the control group (M = 599.0 ms, SD = 241.6).
Retention test MT was significantly shorter for 15% target force (M = 455.2 ms, SD = 196.9)
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 17
than 30% (M = 531.6 ms, SD = 205.7) and 45% (M = 592.5 ms, SD = 215.0) target force
levels and MT was significantly shorter for 30% than 45% target force. There were no main
effects or interactions for learning calculated as the difference in performance from the end of
training block 6 to the retention test for RT (p=0.19) and MT (p=0.25) suggesting both groups
retained RT and MT performance at the retention test.
4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of induced acute psychological
stress and anxiety on subsequent perceptual-motor learning. Stress and anxiety were
manipulated prior to training on a speeded precision pinch task by using a mental arithmetic
stress-anxiety challenge involving two levels of difficulty. Self-reported stress and anxiety
were both higher following the intervention in the high stress-anxiety group when compared
to the control group, indicating that the stress-anxiety challenge manipulation was effective.
An unexpected finding was that prior to the mental arithmetic challenge, participants in the
high stress-anxiety group reported lower levels of state stress and anxiety. This baseline
difference is difficult to explain on the basis of participant characteristics since no group
differences in perceived life stress and trait anxiety were evident. Nevertheless, participants
in the high stress-anxiety group reported a larger increase in state stress and anxiety than
those in the control group. The perceptual-motor learning effects of reduced reaction time and
movement time across the learning period, and improved retention of movement accuracy as
measured by absolute error and variable error therefore appear to be due to increased levels
of stress and anxiety prior to training. These findings suggest that, at least under these
conditions, elevated levels of stress and anxiety are associated with an adaptive response to
motor learning. Unfortunately, the change in stress and anxiety from baseline to pre-training
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 18
was highly correlated. This makes interpretation of the independent effects of stress and
anxiety on motor learning difficult. The increase in stress and anxiety induced by the high
stress-anxiety task appears to have been relatively short-lived since self-reported stress and
anxiety scores were not different between groups during and following the motor training.
Thus, with respect to the present behavioral findings, the beneficial effects of stress and
anxiety on perceptual-motor learning must be considered with respect to what appears as
increased stress and anxiety prior to training but not during training.
A key finding arising from the present study is that experiencing states of increased
stress and anxiety prior to a bout of training benefitted perceptual-motor learning as measured
with a speeded sub-maximal pinch grip task. For humans, the ability to manipulate small
objects requires precise scaling of sub-maximal grip forces, therefore making the grip tasks
utilized in this study an important assessment of hand dexterity. Perceptual motor learning
was assessed as performance improvements across the six training blocks and at the retention
test conducted 24 hours later. Across training, those previously exposed to high stress and
anxiety demonstrated shorter movement time and reaction time compared to the control
group. Furthermore, greater learning of reaction time performance as demonstrated by
improvement between training block one to six was evident in those previously exposed to
high stress and anxiety. Improvements in these chronometric measures across training did not
result in deterioration of movement accuracy. This suggests that the level of induced stress
and anxiety in this experiment did alter speed-accuracy relationships by improving movement
preparation and execution response times without affecting accuracy (Leon & Revelle, 1985).
Our findings confirm previous studies which report benefits in motor performance with
elevated levels of stress and anxiety (Duncko et al., 2007; Marteniuk & Wenger, 1970;
Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010; Sage & Bennett, 1973).
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 19
At the retention test conducted 24 hours later, faster movement times were again
evident in the high stress-anxiety group. Interestingly, this group also demonstrated greater
retention of improved movement accuracy as measured by absolute error and variable error.
However of note is the difference in self-reported state anxiety between groups at the
retention test. This difference is in line with that observed at baseline on the day prior.
Suggestion that these differences represent group stress and anxiety traits is not supported
since the groups did not differ with respect to perceived stress and trait anxiety scores. At
this stage, it is difficult specify if differences in state stress and anxiety are a result of
anticipating upcoming task performance, the level of stress and anxiety experience the
previous day, or some combination of these. Future work is needed to clarify this issue.
Since increases in stress and anxiety resulted in faster MT during both training and the
retention test, it may suggest that part of the learning benefit following inducement of stress
and anxiety might arise from motor calibration processes (Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans, 2012).
In other words, MT was faster at the retention test because during training, stress and anxiety
provided the opportunity to learn under conditions when the motor system was primed for
fast responding. Primed processes allowed for faster motor responses even when the source
of stress and anxiety was no longer present. While time pressure of the high stress-anxiety
challenge may have contributed to faster movement and reaction times during learning of the
speeded sub-maximal pinch task, it is unlikely that this priming of the motor system carried
over to the retention test 24 hours later. We propose that faster movement time demonstrated
at the retention test represents learning of the motor task. Evidence of improved learning of
movement accuracy by the group exposed to high stress-anxiety, provides further evidence
that both stress and anxiety might alter motor characteristics to advantage performance. We
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 20
therefore propose that our findings further extend the maximal adaptability model. The
maximal adaptability model (Hancock & Warm, 1989) suggests adaptive responses allow for
the maintenance of performance under stress. Our results partially support this model as
elevated levels of stress were associated with improved reaction and movement time across
the learning period. However, our findings also appear to indicate that self-reported levels of
anxiety prior to the perceptual-motor task also benefit performance. This may suggest that
onset of anxiety does not appear to represent the limit of maximal adaption. Additionally, our
findings may also further extend the maximal adaptability model by demonstrating
improvements in motor learning, as demonstrated at the retention test, with elevated levels of
stress and anxiety prior to learning the task. Furthermore, we extend findings from Wegner et
al. (2014) by providing some evidence that in addition to stress, anxiety may also improve
motor performance on a manual dexterity task. Interestingly, motor adaptations appear to
have had a greater influence on response execution processes as opposed to response
preparation processes (see Van Galen (1980), and Sanders (1980), for a discussion on these
processes). This is based on the observation that the previous increases in stress and anxiety
resulted in shorter MT and improved learning of movement accuracy at the retention test 24
hours following learning, while shorter RT durations were only evident in three training
blocks. The implications of this finding require further investigation.
These findings therefore provide empirical evidence that elevated states of stress and
anxiety benefit perceptual-motor learning (Duncko et al., 2007; Marteniuk & Wenger, 1970;
Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010; Sage & Bennett, 1973). Findings from
Lawrence et al. (2014) and Oudejans and Pijpers (2010) would suggest that these benefits are
only revealed when anxious conditions are reintroduced. The present results however indicate
that this might not be so, as those who were exposed to the high stress-anxiety challenge prior
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 21
to training reported anxiety levels similar to those at baseline while demonstrating
performance benefits at the retention test. In comparison to previous demonstrations of
perceptual-motor learning benefits from anxiety, the present findings are noteworthy because
they demonstrate that states of anxiety do not necessarily need to coincide with the bout of
learning or arise from task characteristics to elicit learning benefits. Perceptual-motor
learning benefits are apparent when states of increased anxiety occur immediately prior to
learning even when elicited by an unrelated task.
A limitation of the current findings is that it is unclear whether the stress task also
actively engaged participants, resulting in increased motivation and mental effort along with
stress and anxiety. Although motivation and mental effort was not measured in this study, this
suggestion does represent an interesting prospect which requires further work to investigate.
On a similar note, mental arithmetic capabilities may have contributed to the magnitude of
stress and anxiety induced by the mental arithmetic challenge. Nevertheless, our current
results do indicate that stress levels increased following the high stress challenge. We suggest
future studies should match experimental groups for motivation and arithmetic skills.
Furthermore, this study utilized a fine motor hand task (pinch grip) to assess motor
performance and learning. It is unclear from this study how stress and anxiety would affect
gross or open motor skills. It may be that central processes governing movement production
are affected to a similar extent by stress and anxiety for both fine and gross motor skills.
Future studies would be required to further investigate the effects of stress and anxiety
specific to different motor skills.
4.1 Conclusions
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 22
In conclusion, we have demonstrated that increased stress and anxiety experimentally
induced by a mental arithmetic task improves perceptual-motor performance and learning.
We propose that improvements to perceptual-motor performance and learning under stress
and anxiety may be underpinned by adaptive responses (Hancock & Warm, 1989). However,
the present results provide greater insight into these adaptive responses as specified by the
maximal adaptability model (Hancock & Warm, 1989). Specifically, anxiety does not appear
to represent the limit of maximal adaption. Also, beyond maintenance of performance, stress
and anxiety related adaptation promotes improved motor performance in the short term and
motor learning in the long term. Proximal, or task-specific, increases in stress and anxiety are
not necessarily essential to derive performance and learning benefits. Here, we demonstrated
these benefits by increasing stress and anxiety prior to a bout of training using a task distinct
to the perceptual-motor task that was trained. These findings have important implications for
understanding the relationship between stress, anxiety, performance and perceptual-motor
learning.
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 23
References
Blascovich, J. (2008). Challenge and threat. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and
avoidance motivation (pp. 431–445). New York: Psychology Press.
Blascovich, J., & Tomaka, J. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation.
Advances in experimental social psychology, 28, 1-51.
Calvo, M. G., Alamo, L., & Ramos, P. M. (1990). Test anxiety, motor-performance and
learning - attentional and somatic interference. Personality and Individual
Differences, 11, 29-38.
Cannon, W. B. (1915). Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear and rage: An account of recent
researches into the function of emotional excitement. New York: Appleton.
Carron, A. V., & Morford, W. R. (1968). Anxiety, stress and motor learning. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 27, 507-511.
Cathcart, S., Petkov, J., & Pritchard, D. (2008). Effects of induced stress on experimental pain
sensitivity in chronic tension-type headache sufferers. European Journal of
Neurology, 15, 552-558.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385-396.
Coombes, S. A., Gamble, K. M., Cauraugh, J. H., & Janelle, C. M. (2008). Emotional states
alter force control during a feedback occluded motor task. Emotion, 8, 104-113.
Cox, R. H. (1983). Consolidation of pursuit rotor learning under conditions of induced
arousal. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 54, 223-228.
Demoja, C. A., & Demoja, G. (1986). State-trait anxiety and motocross performance.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 107-110.
Duffy, E. (1957). The psychological significance of the concept of arousal or activation.
Psychological Review, 64, 265-275.
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 24
Duncko, R., Cornwell, B., Cui, L., Merikangas, K. R., & Grillon, C. (2007). Acute exposure
to stress improves performance in trace eyeblink conditioning and spatial learning
tasks in healthy men. Learning and Memory, 14, 329-335.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive
performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336-353.
Frings, D., Rycroft, N., Allen, M. S., & Fenn, R. (2014). Watching for gains and losses: The
effects of motivational challenge and threat on attention allocation during a visual
search task. Motivation and Emotion, 1-10.
Gaillard, A. W. K. (2001). Stress, workload, and fatigue as three biobehavioral states: A
general overview. In P. A. Hancock & P. A. Desmond (Eds.), Stress, workload, and
fatigue (pp. 623-639). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hancock, P. A., & Warm, J. S. (1989). A dynamic-model of stress and sustained attention.
Human Factors, 31, 519-537.
Hardy, L., Mullen, R., & Jones, G. (1996). Knowledge and conscious control of motor
actions under stress. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 621-636.
Hockey, G. R. J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under
stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology,
45, 73-93.
Joëls, M., Pu, Z., Wiegert, O., Oitzl, M. S., & Krugers, H. J. (2006). Learning under stress:
How does it work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 152-158.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1998). Emotion, motivation, and anxiety:
Brain mechanisms and psychophysiology. Biological Psychiatry, 44, 1248-1263.
Lawrence, G. P., Cassell, V. E., Beattie, S., Woodman, T., Khan, M. A., Hardy, L., &
Gottwald, V. M. (2014). Practice with anxiety improves performance, but only when
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 25
anxious: Evidence for the specificity of practice hypothesis. Psychological Research-
Psychologische Forschung, 78, 634-650.
Leon, M. R., & Revelle, W. (1985). Effects of anxiety on analogical reasoning: A test of three
theoretical models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1302.
Marteniuk, R. G. (1976). Information processing in motor skills. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Marteniuk, R. G., & Wenger, H. A. (1970). Facilitation of pursuit rotor learning by induced
stress. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 31, 471-477.
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.
Moore, L. J., Vine, S. J., Wilson, M. R., & Freeman, P. (2012). The effect of challenge and
threat states on performance: An examination of potential mechanisms.
Psychophysiology, 49, 1417-1425.
Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional
components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry–emotionality scale.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541.
Nieuwenhuys, A., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2012). Anxiety and perceptual-motor performance:
Toward an integrated model of concepts, mechanisms, and processes. Psychological
Research-Psychologische Forschung, 76, 747-759.
Noteboom, J. T., Barnholt, K. R., & Enoka, R. M. (2001). Activation of the arousal response
and impairment of performance increase with anxiety and stressor intensity. Journal
of Applied Physiology, 91, 2093-2101.
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 26
Noto, Y., Sato, T., Kudo, M., Kurata, K., & Hirota, K. (2005). The relationship between
salivary biomarkers and state-trait anxiety inventory score under mental arithmetic
stress: A pilot study. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 101, 1873-1876.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The edinburgh inventory.
Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
Oudejans, R., & Pijpers, J. (2009). Training with anxiety has a positive effect on expert
perceptual-motor performance under pressure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 62, 1631-1647.
Oudejans, R. R. D., & Pijpers, J. R. (2010). Training with mild anxiety may prevent choking
under higher levels of anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 44-50.
Pemberton, C. L., & Cox, R. H. (1981). Consolidation theory and the effects of stress and
anxiety on motor behavior. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 12, 131-139.
Ritvanen, T., Louhevaara, V., Helin, P., Halonen, T., & Hänninen, O. (2007). Effect of aerobic
fitness on the physiological stress responses at work. International Journal of
Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 20, 1-8.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2003). Effect sizes for experimenting psychologists.
Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie
expérimentale, 57, 221.
Sage, G. H., & Bennett, B. (1973). The effects of induced arousal on learning and
performance of a pursuit motor skill. Research Quarterly, 44, 140-149.
Sanders, A. F. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin
(Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331-354). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Savion-Lemieux, T., & Penhune, V. B. (2005). The effects of practice and delay on motor
skill learning and retention. Experimental Brain Research, 161, 423-431.
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 27
Schupp, H. T., Junghofer, M., Weike, A. I., & Hamm, A. O. (2003). Emotional facilitation of
sensory processing in the visual cortex. Psychological Science, 14, 7-13.
Selye, H. (1973). The evolution of the stress concept. American Scientist, 61, 692-699.
Shea, C. H., Lai, Q., Black, C., & Park, J. H. (2000). Spacing practice sessions across days
benefits the learning of motor skills. Human Movement Science, 19, 737-760.
Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R., Lushene, P., Vagg, P., & Jacobs, A. (1983). Manual for the
state-trait anxiety inventory (form y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press,
Inc.
Staal, M. A. (2004). Stress, cognition, and human performance: A literature review and
conceptual framework.
Stokes, A., & Kite, K. (2001). On grasping a nettle and becoming emotional. Stress,
workload, and fatigue. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum, 162-181.
Tepas, D., & Price, J. (2001). What is stress and what is fatigue. Stress, workload, and
fatigue. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Van Galen, G. P. (1980). Storage and retrieval of handwriting patterns: A two-stage model of
complex motor behavior. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor
behavior (pp. 567-578). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Vine, S. J., Freeman, P., Moore, L. J., Chandra-Ramanan, R., & Wilson, M. R. (2013).
Evaluating stress as a challenge is associated with superior attentional control and
motor skill performance: Testing the predictions of the biopsychosocial model of
challenge and threat. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 185-194.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Measurement and mismeasurement of mood: Recurrent
and emergent issues. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 267-296.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological
Bulletin, 98, 219-235.
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 28
Wegner, M., Koedijker, J. M., & Budde, H. (2014). The effect of acute exercise and
psychosocial stress on fine motor skills and testosterone concentration in the saliva of
high school students. PLoS ONE, 9.
Weinberg, R. S., & Ragan, J. (1978). Motor performance under three levels of trait anxiety
and stress. Journal of Motor Behavior, 10, 169-176.
647
648
649
650
651
652

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 29
Figure Legends
Figure 1: Experimental set-up for the sub-maximal pinch grip task. Participants were
required to perform a pinch grip to 15%MVC (A), 30%MVC (B) or 45%MVC (C). The
pinch grip was performed as in D.
Figure 2. Self-reported state stress (top) and anxiety (bottom) across training and the
retention test sessions. Following the mental arithmetic task, the high stress-anxiety group
had significantly higher levels of self-reported stress and anxiety. The high stress-anxiety
group is indicated by the shaded squares, and control group is indicated by the open circles.
Figure 3. Absolute error (top) and variable error (bottom) across both training and the
retention test sessions. Absolute error in training block 1 was significantly higher than block
two to six. There were no differences in variable error across training or the retention test.
High stress-anxiety group is indicated by the shaded squares, and control group is indicated
by the open circles. Error bars represent standard error.
Figure 4. Reaction time (top) and movement time (bottom) across both training and the
retention test sessions. Reaction time was significantly shorter for the high stress-anxiety
group in training blocks 3, 4 and 6. Movement time was significantly shorter for the high
stress-anxiety group across all training blocks and the retention test. High stress-anxiety
group is indicated by the shaded squares, and control group is indicated by the open circles.
Error bars represent standard error.
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 30
Table 1. Participant characteristics for the high stress-anxiety and control groups. There were
no significant differences between stress condition groups. M, mean; SD, standard deviation;
N, Newton’s; R, right; L, left.
Stress-Anxiety Condition High Control Group Comparison
N 18 18
Age, M (SD) 23.28 (3.03) 23.33 (3.83) p = 0.96
Gender, Female (Male) 8 (10) 12 (6) p = 0.18
Hand Dominance R (L) 17 (1) 14 (4) p = 0.15
Perceived Life Stress,
M (SD)
12.33 (4.75) 12.89 (3.60) p = 0.69
Trait Anxiety,
M (SD)
34.89 (5.47) 35.94 (7.64) p = 0.64
Maximum Pinch Force, N,
M (SD)
32.57 (9.14) 32.51 (8.51) p = 0.98
676
677
678
679
680
681
682

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 31
Figures
Figure 1
683
684
685
686

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 32
Figure 2
687
688
689

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 33
Figure 3
690
691
692

Stress, Anxiety and Perceptual-Motor Learning, 34
Figure 4
693
694
695