Search

Background: Pain is a common problem in elite athletes. This exploratory study compares goal orientations towards sport, fear of failure, self-handicapping and pain catastrophizing between active young elite athletes with and without chronic pain (CP) complaints (longer than three months). It examines the associations between chronic pain, fear of failure, goal orientations, self-handicapping and pain catastrophizing in young elite athletes. We explore how far goal orientation can be explained by these factors. Methods: Young elite athletes completed an online questionnaire. Data analysis: Independent samples t-test, correlational analyses and multivariate regression analyses. Results: Participants were 132 young elite athletes (mean 16 years); data for 126 were analyzed. A total of 47% reported current pain, of which 60% had CP. Adolescents with CP showed significantly more pain intensity, fear of failure, self-handicapping and mastery–avoidance goals than those without. Pain intensity was significantly related to fear of failure, self-handicapping, pain catastrophizing and mastery–avoidance. Self-handicapping and fear of failure contributed significantly to mastery–avoidance variance. Performance–avoidance and –approach goals were explained by fear of failure. Conclusion: CP was common, with sufferers showing more fear of failure and self-handicapping strategies, and being motivated to avoid performing worse (mastery–avoidance). Self-handicapping and fear of failure influenced mastery–avoidance orientation, and fear of failure explained part of performance–avoidance and –approach orientations. Longitudinal studies should explore the role of these factors in the trajectory of CP in these athletes.

BACKGROUND:The reduced ability to identify a second target when it is presented in close temporal succession of a first target is called the attentional blink (AB). Studies have shown large individual differences in AB task performance, where lower task performance has been associated with more reversed order reports of both targets if these were presented in direct succession. In order to study the suggestion that reversed order reports reflect loss of temporal information, in the current study, we investigated whether individuals with a larger AB have a higher tendency to temporally integrate both targets into one visual event by using an AB paradigm containing symbol target stimuli. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Indeed, we found a positive relation between the tendency to temporally integrate information and individual AB magnitude. In contrast to earlier work, we found no relation between order reversals and individual AB magnitude. The occurrence of temporal integration was negatively related to the number of order reversals, indicating that individuals either integrated or separated and reversed information. CONCLUSION:We conclude that individuals with better AB task performance use a shorter time window to integrate information, and therefore have higher preservation of temporal information. Furthermore, order reversals observed in paradigms with alphanumeric targets indeed seem to at least partially reflect temporal integration of both targets. Given the negative relation between temporal integration and 'true' order reversals observed with the current symbolic target set, these two behavioral outcomes seem to be two sides of the same coin.

Attention is restricted for the second of two targets when it is presented within 200-500 ms of the first target. This attentional blink (AB) phenomenon allows one to study the dynamics of temporal selective attention by varying the interval between the two targets (T1 and T2). Whereas the AB has long been considered as a robust and universal cognitive limitation, several studies have demonstrated that AB task performance greatly differs between individuals, with some individuals showing no AB whatsoever.Here, we studied these individual differences in AB task performance in relation to differences in attentional timing. Furthermore, we investigated whether AB magnitude is predictive for the amount of attention allocated to T1. For both these purposes pupil dilation was measured, and analyzed with our recently developed deconvolution method. We found that the dynamics of temporal attention in small versus large blinkers differ in a number of ways. Individuals with a relatively small AB magnitude seem better able to preserve temporal order information. In addition, they are quicker to allocate attention to both T1 and T2 than large blinkers. Although a popular explanation of the AB is that it is caused by an unnecessary overinvestment of attention allocated to T1, a more complex picture emerged from our data, suggesting that this may depend on whether one is a small or a large blinker.The use of pupil dilation deconvolution seems to be a powerful approach to study the temporal dynamics of attention, bringing us a step closer to understanding the elusive nature of the AB. We conclude that the timing of attention to targets may be more important than the amount of allocated attention in accounting for individual differences.

BACKGROUND: When two targets are presented in close temporal succession, the majority of people frequently fail to report the second target. This phenomenon, known as the 'attentional blink' (AB), has been a major topic in attention research for the past twenty years because it is informative about the rate at which stimuli can be encoded into consciously accessible representations. An aspect of the AB that has long been ignored, however, is individual differences. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Here we compare a group of blinkers (who show an AB) and non-blinkers (who show little or no AB), and investigate the boundary conditions of the non-blinkers' remarkable ability. Second, we directly test the properties of temporal selection by analysing response errors, allowing us to uncover individual differences in suppression, delay, and diffusion of selective attention across time. Thirdly, we test the hypothesis that information concerning temporal order is compromised when an AB is somehow avoided. Surprisingly, compared to earlier studies, only a modest amount of suppression was found for blinkers. Non-blinkers showed no suppression, were more precise in selecting the second target, and made less order reversals than blinkers did. In contrast, non-blinkers made relatively more intrusions and showed a selection delay when the second target immediately followed the first target (at lag 1). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The findings shed new light on the mechanisms that may underlie individual differences in selective attention. The notable ability of non-blinkers to accurately perceive targets presented in close temporal succession might be due to a relatively faster and more precise target selection process compared to large blinkers.