“My Mind Varied Its Focus Quite a Bit”: A Thematic Analysis of the Attentional Focus of Aspiring Professional Violinists and Violists During Performance

Abstract

Knowledge about musicians’ attentional focus may shed more light on why some succeed in demonstrating their optimal performance under pressure while others fail to do so. In previous research, attentional focus has not been investigated directly after performance. The aim of this study was to extend and deepen our understanding of the “what” and “how” of musicians’ attentional focus during performance under pressure. Qualitative data provided by 46 violinists and violists in open-format questionnaires immediately after they performed audition excerpts under low- and high-pressure conditions were analyzed using thematic analysis within a constructivist framework. Findings revealed that the focus of upper string players during “real-life” performance may be more dynamic and multifaceted than previous research might suggest. In particular, when participants reported a music-related focus, they referred to the level of formal and technical elements and to the level of interpretation and character, but also to prioritizing between the two levels. They focused on the navigation of these music-related aspects, their physical and emotional performance experience, critical thoughts and attempts at control, and the quality and dynamic of their focus. Furthermore, they described ways of managing their focus in a positive and adaptive sense but also reported negative thoughts, feelings, and sensations. Staying in the present moment and enjoying the music was thus a desirable focus. Approaches based on mindfulness and acceptance may be particularly suited to supporting musicians in maintaining a beneficial attentional focus during performance.

Musicians striving for an orchestral career usually must excel in an audition, a highly competitive pressure situation often inducing strong music performance anxiety that is difficult to manage (Kenny et al., 2014). In such a situation, even skilled performers who are motivated to perform well may experience a decline in their performance, a phenomenon known as “choking under pressure” (Baumeister, 1984). Choking theories imply that performers fail under pressure because of maladaptive attention: Due to heightened performance anxiety, the skilled performer might become distracted or consciously monitor and thereby interfere with the otherwise automated skill execution (Gröpel & Mesagno, 2019). Consequently, a knowledge of the kind of focus musicians employ and where they direct their attention can shed more light on the reasons why some of them succeed, whereas others fail to show their optimal performance in auditions. This might help both researchers and practitioners working with musicians to have a greater understanding of how to prevent maladaptive attention and optimize music performance. The existing literature provides only broad definitions and limited data on music students’ attention during performance (Hohagen & Immerz, 2024). Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide an in-depth qualitative investigation of music students’ attentional focus and thoughts, reported immediately after a performance, to advance research on and practice of musicians’ attention and performance preparation.

Research on attention during music-making comprises several different approaches. Defining musicians’ attentional focus and process of focusing attention is thus not an easy task. Focused attention has generally been defined as “an aspect of attention that brings a select amount of information into conscious awareness” (MacKay-Brandt, 2011, p. 1066). What specific information might that be during a music performance, and how do musicians bring it into their conscious awareness? Previous research has explored the objects of musicians’ attentional focus with regard to past performances, instructions of what to focus on given right before the performance, and interventions based on mindfulness and acceptance (e.g., Gardner & Moore, 2007, 2017). With this study, we aimed to extend our understanding not only of the “what,” that is, the object(s) of attention, but also the “how” of attention focusing, that is, the selection and direction of attention toward these objects. Indeed, thoughts may occur during these processes of selection or direction without being focused on the task at hand (Shinagawa et al., 2023). Ultimately, this understanding may inspire the future design of interventions or instructions for attentional focus.

In an attempt to provide a full picture of the different lines of research and theoretical approaches to attentional focus in music performance to date, we will outline (1) research based on the conceptualization of internal and external focus for motor performance, (2) studies using retrospective accounts of musicians’ attentional focus, and (3) the role of mindfulness and acceptance in relation to attentional focus. We will then return to the aim of our study with respect to these different lines of research.

Internal and External Attentional Focus

A prominent theoretical perspective on attentional focus during motor performance, which is not necessarily identical to the performer’s visual focus, distinguishes between an internal focus on the body movement itself and an external focus on the intended effect of a movement (Wulf, 2013). In the case of high performance anxiety under pressure, an internal focus may also be seen as the same as conscious monitoring and interference with automatic control during task execution (Mesagno et al., 2016; Mornell & Wulf, 2019). Recent studies in music performance have added somatic focus, a type of external focus on tactile sensory feedback that has so far only been explored with upper string players and singers (Allingham et al., 2021; Atkins, 2017), and an external focus on communicating with the audience (Mentzel, 2016; Mornell & Wulf, 2019).

In this line of research, musicians were given instructions on “what” to focus on. Asking participants immediately before performance to focus internally or externally during playing or singing revealed clear benefits of an external attentional focus for performance quality in several studies with singers and instrumentalists (Allingham & Wöllner, 2022; Allingham et al., 2021; Atkins, 2017, 2018; Duke et al., 2011; Jentzsch & Braun, 2023; Lipke-Perry et al., 2022; Mornell & Wulf, 2019; Van Zijl & Luck, 2013; Williams et al., 2023). However, no significant effects of attentional focus instructions on performance quality were found in two studies with woodwind players (Stambaugh, 2017, 2019), and another study with singers reported mixed results (Mentzel, 2016). The above studies vary greatly in terms of what exactly the external focus instructions entailed; it could mean focusing on objects with different degrees of distance from the performer, on sensorimotor processes, on psychological mechanisms, or on communication (see Hohagen & Immerz, 2024, for a review). Given that the musicians’ focus in these studies was manipulated immediately before performance, their ecological validity for “real-life” performance remains questionable (Allingham & Wöllner, 2022). Indeed, when asked about their actual focus afterwards, some participants reported having focused on several aspects at once, not being limited to an exclusively internal or external focus (Allingham & Wöllner, 2022; Mornell & Wulf, 2019). It thus remains unclear whether the paradigm of internal and external attentional focus can be beneficially adapted to music research and education (Hohagen & Immerz, 2024).

Retrospective Accounts of Attentional Focus During Performance

Studies investigating musicians’ thoughts and attentional focus using retrospective reports of past, “real-life” performances also went beyond the distinction between internal and external focus. For example, Clark et al. (2014) asked musicians to imagine a successful and a less successful past performance and describe their thoughts before, during, and after these experiences. The musicians reported that their focus during a successful performance involved the experience of being in the moment, communicating with the audience, and focusing on the sound. By contrast, their focus during a less successful performance included concerns of negative evaluations, mistakes, basic technical issues, and a pervasive feeling that things could be going better. To reduce the risk of performance decrements due to inadequate focus, aspiring professionals in a recent case study on performance management strategies indicated that they tried to control their attention with a music-related focus during auditions (Kegelaers et al., 2022).

In another study, Buma et al. (2015) asked professional musicians to report what they focused on and thought about specifically during high-pressure moments. The authors identified six categories for the musicians’ attentional focus: (a) music-related focus, (b) focus on physical aspects, (c) worries and disturbing thoughts, (d) thoughts that give confidence, (e) narrow focus, and (f) the “other” category. These categories were largely replicated by Oudejans et al. (2017), who studied music students’ attention before a choking experience and after having made a mistake. Both music students and professionals reported having focused mostly on music-related aspects. However, whereas professionals also reported a focus on physical aspects and thoughts giving confidence when performing under pressure (Buma et al., 2015), music students described more distracting thoughts and worries, particularly directly before choking (Oudejans et al., 2017). Taken together, studies with retrospective reports indicate that focusing on the present moment and on musical aspects could be beneficial for successful music performance.

Attentional Focus in Approaches Based on Mindfulness and Acceptance

A different perspective on attentional focus during performance is centered on the idea that purposeful, non-judgmental present moment awareness, often referred to as mindfulness, and the acceptance of internal experiences (i.e., thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations) as they come, is more conducive to optimal performance than active control of one's internal experiences (Gardner & Moore, 2007, 2017). A comprehensive definition of mindfulness by Lutz and colleagues (2015) includes three functional dimensions: (a) object orientation, meaning that one is aware of some particular thing that arose through perception, memory, or imagination; (b) dereification, meaning the interpretation of one's internal experiences as mental processes rather than as being real; and (c) meta-awareness, which generally refers to monitoring one's experience. Meta-awareness may mean, for example, that one notices that one's mind is wandering, or that one sustains focus on an object and simultaneously monitors the quality of one's attention on this object (Lutz et al., 2015). The concepts of mindfulness and acceptance thus offer perspectives on how performers may focus their attention and highlight the importance of being in the present moment. As this study was also aimed at investigating how musicians direct and sustain their focus, these concepts provide useful theoretical frameworks to put our findings into context.

When one is not able to focus on the present moment in a non-judgmental way, one might experience cognitive fusion, which occurs when one reacts to one's thoughts or other internal experiences as if they were highly believable or real, thereby restricting one's ability to respond to them in a flexible way (Juncos & de Paiva e Pona, 2022). For example, one might fuse with the thought that one's tension prevents one from performing well and thus focus on relaxing or getting rid of the tension rather than on task-relevant aspects. When one is fused with a thought about one's incapacity, it becomes a fact in one's mind, and an inner distancing is more difficult. With interventions based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), individuals learn to defuse from their internal experiences by developing non-judgmental, present moment awareness and shifting attention toward what matters most, even in the presence of psychological strain or mental distress, such as performance anxiety (Hayes et al., 2011). It is thus related to dereification as a dimension of mindfulness (Lutz et al., 2015).

In music performance research, interventions based on mindfulness or ACT have been shown to have positive effects on participants’ performance anxiety and quality of performance (e.g., Czajkowski et al., 2022; Juncos et al., 2017). A recent study showed that mindfulness interventions in music were associated with a reduction of music performance anxiety symptoms, enhanced body awareness and concentration, reduced mind wandering, and less self-criticism and worry overall (Czajkowski et al., 2022). ACT was demonstrated to be effective in reducing music performance anxiety and improving performance quality for music students (Clarke et al., 2020; Juncos et al., 2017; Juncos & Markman, 2016). It was also found that coaching based on ACT principles can be helpful in defusing from thoughts related to music performance anxiety, and accepting one's anxiety, which can positively impact career opportunities (Mahony et al., 2022; Shaw et al., 2020). However, none of these studies investigated music students’ attentional focus during performance.

Summary and Rationale for the Present Study

In summary, previous studies relating to musicians’ attentional focus provide some valuable theoretical approaches and practical implications. Instructions to focus externally on the intended effect of one's movements may be beneficial for performance quality, but there are different interpretations of what exactly such an external focus may entail. Studies with retrospective reports indicate that focusing on the present moment and on musical aspects could also be beneficial for successful music performance. Studies based on mindfulness and acceptance similarly advocate a focus on the present moment. However, there are several limitations and remaining questions.

While studies based on ACT did not explicitly investigate attentional focus during performance, findings from studies of past performances might be limited by retrospective designs and post-attributions of performance outcomes, and studies of attentional focus instructions may lack ecological validity. On the one hand, participants in the studies by Buma et al. (2015), Clark et al. (2014), and Oudejans et al. (2017) were requested to relate their reports to past performances rather than being asked immediately after the performance. Hence, the potentially long time between the performance in question and the verbal reports might have diminished the accuracy of participants’ reports and encouraged post-attributions. Moreover, the above findings indicate that a task-relevant focus refers to “the music” in a rather broad sense (Buma et al., 2015), calling for studies “to further specify what music-related information is” (Oudejans et al., 2017, p. 228). Conversely, the studies investigating internal or external focus instructions lack ecological validity as they often did not use real-life performance tasks (e.g., Allingham et al., 2021) or may have interfered with participants’ preference for focusing on more than one particular aspect of performance.

For the present paper, we thus designed an investigation of attentional focus as close to “real-life” performance as possible. In addition to overcoming the above limitations, we also wanted to answer the call by Oudejans et al. (2017) for further specification of a music-related focus and delve deeper into musicians’ attentional focus during performance. Recognizing the significance of attentional focus in shaping performance outcomes, our aim was twofold. First, we sought to explore and expand upon the six categories identified by Buma et al. (2015), investigating specifics within and beyond these categories. Second, we aimed to elaborate on how musicians focus on these varied aspects and explore the potential connections between focus, mindfulness, and acceptance.

To create a similar performance setting for all participants and let them perform standardized audition tasks, we decided to recruit a rather homogenous group of upper string players. Through a detailed qualitative analysis, we intended to investigate the intricacies of musicians’ thoughts and focus during performances, particularly under both low- and high-pressure conditions. Specifically, we aimed to answer the following research questions: What did the musicians focus on and think about while performing? How did they do this under low and high pressure? Answers to these questions may help to advance musical training and propose relevant educational procedures.

Method

Participants and Study Design

The qualitative data analyzed in this study were collected as part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the effect of choking interventions on music students’ performance and self-efficacy (Lubert & Gröpel, 2022). The RCT was conducted online in September 2020 and included a low-pressure pretest and a high-pressure posttest. The online design was chosen due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with the advantage that musicians from all over the world were able to participate.

Participants were recruited internationally from music universities, conservatories, and orchestra academies. Forty-six music students and aspiring professional musicians (37 women and 9 men) of 22 different nationalities (including Australia, Europe, Mexico, the United States, and Uruguay) signed informed consent for inclusion, collection/use of data, and publication, according to the Declaration of Helsinki, and provided demographic information. Thirty-nine of them were violinists and seven were violists. Their age ranged from 18 to 35 years (M = 26.26, SD = 4.43). On average, they had been playing their instruments for 18.98 years (SD = 4.42), practiced 20.76 hr per week (SD = 6.71), and had performed 8.72 auditions so far (SD = 6.85). Nineteen participants were undergraduate students, 14 were graduate students, and 13 were postgraduate students or members of orchestra academies. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the first author's institution (#2020/S/010).

Procedure and Data Collection

Participants recorded videos of themselves playing standard audition excerpts under two conditions: In the low-pressure pretest, they recorded several takes at their convenience and chose which take to share, and in the high-pressure posttest, they recorded and uploaded only one take for an expert jury who gave them feedback in a personal video call afterwards. Based on the studies by Buma et al. (2015) and Oudejans et al. (2017), participants were asked the following open-format question as part of an online questionnaire immediately after their performance: “Where did your focus of attention go during your recording? Please explain in a few sentences where you called your attention to and/or what you were thinking about.” The question and the participants’ answers were provided in English, the native language of 21 of the participants.

Data Analysis and Trustworthiness

We used thematic analysis with an inductive orientation because it allowed us to explore patterned meaning in participants’ performance experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2021) without being determined by theoretical constructs or predefined categories (e.g., internal and external focus), which would have been a deductive orientation. We chose to do so within a constructivist framework because it appeared to be the most suitable lens to investigate how our participants created meaningful understanding of their experiences individually (Raskin, 2002), rather than socially (which distinguishes it from social constructionism; Braun & Clarke, 2021). After intense familiarization with the data, the first and second authors independently coded the data separately for low- and high-pressure conditions and compiled a list of preliminary codes. Next, we engaged in collaborative coding and discussed discrepancies before agreeing on the final codes and organizing them into clusters according to patterns of meaning. We then developed four main themes.

During the analysis, we followed the suggestions for conducting rigorous qualitative research by Smith and McGannon (2018). To achieve rigor in a different way than through inter-rater reliability, the third author served as a critical friend to point out alternative, plausible interpretations of our data (Smith & McGannon, 2018). As critical friend, the third author had not been involved in the initial coding processes and challenged the themes developed by the first and second author from an external, independent expert perspective by offering critical feedback (Smith & McGannon, 2018; Sparkes & Smith, 2013). This was especially valuable because the first and second authors are both classically trained musicians, whereas the third author is not. From the perspective of a violinist (first author) and a singer (second author), our analysis was also influenced by our own performance experiences.

Results and Discussion

Our four main themes are (1) navigation of music-related aspects, (2) physical and emotional performance experience, (3) critical thoughts and attempts at control, and (4) quality and dynamic of one's focus (see Table 1 for an overview and Figure 1 for the thematic map divided between the “what” and “how” of attentional focus). Theme 1 includes three subthemes; the other themes include two subthemes. Somewhat unexpectedly, we did not identify any themes that were unique to either low- or high-pressure conditions, but we did determine minor differences between responses under low and high pressure. Therefore, themes are presented jointly for both conditions, rather than separately. Excerpts from participants’ responses to illustrate the themes were corrected for minor typographical errors and are otherwise displayed verbatim, with the participant number and “L” for the low-pressure and “H” for the high-pressure condition.

Figure 1.

Thematic map divided between the “what” and “how” of attentional focus.

Table 1.

Overview of themes and subthemes related to the “what” and “how” of attentional focus.

Theme	“What” subtheme (frequency in the data)	“How” subtheme (frequency in the data)
“I focused on the music and character” —navigation of music-related aspects	Formal and technical elements of the music (62) Interpretation (33)	Prioritization and perceived costs (10)
“I was feeling shaky” —physical and emotional performance experience	Feelings (20) Bodily sensations (14)	–
“Mainly I was thinking…” —critical thoughts and attempts at control	Self-talk (21)	Conscious control (28)
“My mind varied its focus quite a bit” —quality and dynamic of one's focus	Focus along a timeline (43)	Change of focus (21)

Theme 1: “I Focused on the Music and Character”—Navigation of Music-Related Aspects

This theme covers a focus on navigating various music-related aspects and is derived from responses mentioning “music,” thinking about technique, and any terms that we recognized as aspects of the music itself and of performing it. The subtheme formal and technical elements of the music refers to a focus on the composition, producing its sound, and the technical aspects of playing the piece. Participants described focusing on the formal aspects of the composition, which included “rhythm, intonation, articulation and dynamic differences” (L17), and they were also “trying to concentrate on the melody” (L20), “on keeping pulse” (H32), or “thinking about tempo” (H23). Furthermore, they directed their attention to the sound and its development, as well as intonation and accuracy: “Most of my attention went to play[ing] everything in tune and with good sound quality” (H09). Specific foci on articulation and sound development or projection were mentioned only under low pressure: “I . . . tried to focus on the development of tone throughout the opening” (L35); “my focus was on the projection in the room” (L32). Participants also described explicitly focusing on the technical execution of the piece, particularly on their hands or the handling of the bow: “a lot on the left hand, because I know my weakness is intonation” (L48); “I focused on coordination between left and right and changes of positions” (H15).

The subtheme interpretation refers to participants’ approaches to enhancing the expressiveness of their performance. Some focused on visual and auditory imagery that elicited associations with performing a live concert, such as “imagining a conductor in front of me, helping me to understand what was happening in the other sections of the orchestra” (L13), or “singing inside with the phrasing, and hearing the piano/orchestra part” (H32). Participants further described focusing on expressing their musical ideas to convey what they wanted to communicate to the audience, which also made it necessary to show certain aspects more vividly than others: “I was thinking about how I have to play and exaggerate some things, that my musical intention reaches the listener's ear” (L15). More specifically, one participant elaborated: “I was also thinking about creating big musical gestures and what characters I was trying to go for” (H23). Especially when recording in the absence of a live audience, thinking about a connection to the audience might need deliberate attention:

I tried to focus on performing with a big sound, and also tried to focus on the fact that I was performing to people, but struggled. I felt like I was just playing to my computer and most of my thoughts were trying to remind myself that a panel was actually going to hear this. (H12)

The subtheme prioritization and perceived costs refers to instances when participants were focused on the music but had to decide on what should be, in their perception, the preferred or the more important object of their focus. Choosing one element to focus on meant being aware of the cost it might incur, such as focusing on accuracy of intonation and performance rather than on the expression of musicality and character: “Today I felt quite in the music, but a lot of my attention was on being technically accurate, which means I probably didn’t bring as many characters as I would have liked” (H29). We also found the opposite, that is, a prioritization of expression and musicality over the technical and basic formal elements of the performance, which was again seen as a decision with costs: “I was conscious that, whilst I was conveying more character than previously, the intonation and rhythmic accuracy was suffering as a result” (H24). It was also indicated that character might be a somewhat more important level of music-related focus: “However, I don’t think I thought enough about character” (H08).

With this first theme, we specifically refer to the call by Oudejans et al. (2017) and shed more light on what a music-related focus means: We distinguished two levels of participants’ focus, formal and technical aspects such as rhythm or intonation, and interpretive aspects such as musical intention and character. This distinction links to a model of two higher-order, strongly intertwined factors, musical expression and technical accuracy, for the evaluation of music performance quality (e.g., Russell, 2015).

These two levels thus form the “what” of a music-related focus, whereas prioritizing between them is “how” our participants navigated them. Giving one of these two levels more attention than the other was perceived by participants as impacting the quality of the level that was given less attention. This was the case for both prioritizing formal or technical accuracy over expressive interpretation and prioritizing musicality over accuracy. Some participants also indicated fusion with their beliefs about such prioritizations, for example by acting as if their thinking was true: “I was very focused on the intonation and the sound because I think I can lose [it] very quickly if I lose my concentration on the piece” (L46).

In a previous study, instructions to focus on an expressive performance and affective aspects of the piece—in this case, focusing on feeling sad—resulted in better performance with fewer mistakes than focusing on cognitive aspects of the musical structure (Higuchi et al., 2011). However, the repertoire was deliberately chosen not to be difficult, whereas the audition excerpts in our study were arguably rather challenging. Whether predominant focus on formal and technical accuracy or on expressive interpretation may be more beneficial could thus also depend on the performer's proficiency with a given piece.

Answers to this question may also vary between musicians and evaluators. Audition panelists in a recent study explicitly referred to prioritizing expressivity over technique in their feedback to aspiring orchestral musicians (Kegelaers et al., 2023). By contrast, the musicians reported satisfaction with their expressivity and a stronger desire to improve their technical performance instead. Mornell and Wulf (2019) showed that experts rated performances higher for musical expression, and—depending on the evaluation criteria—even for technical precision, if participants were instructed to focus on playing for the audience and an expressive sound rather than on their finger movements. While Mornell and Wulf intended to manipulate participants’ focus and expected them to focus either internally or externally, our participants did not describe having one exclusive focus; for example:

I felt slightly tense in my right shoulder/upper arm and was thinking about this to try and relax. I was thinking about two or three bars of music that I knew I hadn’t prepared enough. I was thinking more about accuracy of notes rather than the character of the music. (L44)

Theme 2: “I Was Feeling Shaky”—Physical and Emotional Performance Experience

As shown in the quote above, participants did not only refer to music-related aspects of the piece when describing what they were thinking about during a performance. The second theme encompasses their physical and emotional experience, articulated as directing their attention toward the perception of bodily sensations and emotional reactions. Typically, participants mentioned “feeling” a particular bodily sensation or a certain way in an emotional sense. This represents two strongly intertwined aspects of our data.

Bodily sensations referred mainly to the perception or observation of relaxation and tension. We subsumed a focus on a body part in relation to instrumental technique under formal elements of music as part of the first theme, rather than under bodily sensations, for two reasons. Technical and musical skills are strongly connected and thus difficult to separate, but even more importantly, the responses that we allocated to the first theme referred to focusing on a body part with the intention to facilitate technical execution, rather than perceiving a sensation in that body part.

In the low-pressure condition, when there was no jury to record for, participants reported focusing on their low levels of arousal: “I was quite relaxed but also quite tired (not feeling nervous at all but not naturally energetic)” (L05). In the high-pressure condition, they also focused on presumably uncomfortable sensations in their hands, such as cold and stiffness. Additionally, bodily sensations connected to performance nerves attracted participants’ attention: “feeling my heart pounding” (H22). However, such sensations were not necessarily perceived as detrimental to performance:

I think though what disturbs me is principally the physical feeling of nervousness (heart racing, feeling of instability on the legs, some kind of lower accuracy in technical violin difficulties). In the recording, I felt these physical symptoms, but they were not that significant in order to disturb my performance (at least I guess I can only myself notice that). (H05)

We identified a greater number of different kinds of negative feelings than positive ones. Positive ones included feeling relaxed and glad in the pretest and free and grounded in the posttest. A positive feeling of enjoyment was mentioned in both conditions. Security was mentioned in relation to both feeling secure and insecure. Specifically, a focus on technique was described as eliciting feelings of security: “I decided to keep thinking about technical tips and tricks of my professor and concentrated myself on qualitative performance in a technical sense. I feel myself more secure like that” (L30). Enjoyment and relaxation were also connected to a focus on musicality: “Sometimes I started [to] really enjoy the piece and play very musically” (L30); “I felt more relaxed so my thoughts went into [the] musical side” (L46). In our participants’ responses, feeling relaxed could mean the absence of tension in a physical sense or a relaxed mental or emotional state, but perhaps also both, and illustrated the strong interrelation between feelings rooted in an emotional and in a bodily state.

Negative feelings included sadness, frustration, stress, nervousness, insecurity, and even anger and panic. Panic was only mentioned in the pretest: “When I approach a phrase that I’m not confident with (e.g., fear of missing a shift), my right arm tenses up and feels out of control and I start to panic” (L33). Indeed, the fact that participants had to record themselves already created stress, as indicated by this insight from the pretest: “Dealing with thoughts like: ‘shit even in this performance just in front of a camera I get nervous’” (L34). Under high pressure, negative feelings were related to the simulated performance situation, arising negative tension, and expectations toward oneself, for example:

I was concentrating during the recording on relaxing my hand, more or less successful[ly]. Then I was angry with myself, because I didn’t concentrate on musical aspects . . . In general I felt more stressed than in the last recording. (H07)

Awareness of bodily sensations is important to mindful coping with elevated stress and anxiety (Eifert & Forsyth, 2005). In current mindfulness-based approaches to reducing performance-related stress and anxiety, awareness and acceptance of one's feelings and sensations are considered as potential adaptive mechanisms that could be developed to enhance performers’ actions (Juncos & de Paiva e Pona, 2022; Noetel et al., 2019). Trying to get rid of one's negative internal experiences or bodily symptoms of anxiety rather than accepting or distancing oneself from them may also imply that one is overly fused with one's thoughts about these experiences or symptoms (Juncos & de Paiva e Pona, 2022). This is also visible in the following quote, where the participant describes being distracted by her bodily symptoms and attributes her perceived decrease in performance quality to these symptoms:

I had the sensation of physical tension in the upper body, much more than on normal practice days, and this distracted my attention during the recording. I heard the effects of this tension immediately, specifically the sound and intonation which suffered . . . . My attention was also focused on my frustration about not being able to relax my bow hand. (L19)

Learning to defuse from such experiences, for example through interventions using mindfulness or ACT, means learning to create more internal distance from them and to choose how to respond to them rather than being distracted or impaired by them (Juncos et al., 2017). Being able to accept and defuse could also be helpful when one has negative thoughts during a performance.

Theme 3: “Mainly I Was Thinking…”—Critical Thoughts and Attempts at Control

The third theme comprises participants’ reports of critical thoughts and attempts at controlling various behavioral or mental aspects during performance, from which we derived the two subthemes self-talk and conscious control. Self-talk consisted of critical thoughts that were either more general or related to the performance with a vivid aspect of evaluation. In some cases, it did not relate explicitly to the performance, as participants were thinking about the set-up of the recording or the number of takes as a potential source of pressure, even in the low-pressure condition:

I was thinking about how I was glad to be able to do the next take and thinking “I’ll get it better in that take” (but then later realized I was out of time to do any more takes due to a busy schedule!). (L11)

Other descriptions of self-talk contained instant, often critical assessment. Participants were thinking about and assessing the quality of their performance, sometimes referring to the external evaluation or their teacher's instructions. Evaluations of their performance and themselves included predominantly negative self-talk, sometimes expressed as an unstoppable stream of consciousness, reflecting specific thoughts from the time of the performance:

I kept thinking about all the things my teacher says to fix as I messed them up again. Vibrato, which notes [I] should be leaning on in phrases, intonation issues, missed shifts, rhythm issues . . . “Are you paying attention to the music of the rest of the orchestra in your head? Count! Yuck, accent on the wrong syllable. I hope I didn’t just loose count. I was trying to keep the 16^th-note counting going but I think I stopped counting again. My bow isn’t straight. I need to stop squeaking. At least I am not shaking. Don’t make faces.” (L22)

“Not good enough. You are messing up. You don’t recover fast enough. Playing like a three-year-old” (my thoughts during [the performance], couldn’t stop them or refocus on other things). (H27)

The above quotes provide further examples of fusion with thoughts as the participants seemed to be unable to distance themselves from their critical self-evaluations and believe that their thoughts were accurate descriptions of reality (Juncos & de Paiva e Pona, 2022). In the presence of difficulties, along with their self-evaluation, participants were reasoning about why the performance was not going as it was supposed to. Participants were fused with thoughts about not meeting their expectations, referring to the pieces’ difficulty or indicating reasons for under-preparation: “I just kept making excuses, that it is way too fresh to record, couldn’t get in the performance mood and calm down” (L25); “mainly I was thinking that it could be so much better, stable, and musical if I would have [had] time to prepare myself better” (L39). Self-talk was not always negative, but we found positive self-talk only in the high-pressure condition, presumably because participants needed to increase their confidence while performing for the expert jury: “I prepared well” (H22).

The second subtheme conscious control is distinct from self-talk consisting of general or evaluative thoughts and instead refers to the active use of thoughts to control or try to control bodily sensations, thoughts, and feelings. While the subtheme of self-talk gives more insight into the “what” of attentional focus, conscious control further illuminates the “how.” There were descriptions of controlling actions such as changing the pace of the performance or correcting intonation on the spot: “I tried to control sound and intonation during [the] whole performance” (L44); “[during] the whole Mozart I controlled rhythm, intonation and phrasing very well” (L30). Participants also directed their attention toward actively controlling different body parts or bodily sensations, for example: “At the beginning, the focus was on trying to calm the butterflies and shaking hands/legs” (H13). Furthermore, the aim to control thoughts and feelings was visible in attempts to calm down, keep one's concentration or even control one's urge to control: “I tried to keep my mind calm” (L14); “ . . . shut down the controller mind, although I kind of fight against that” (L05).

In the high-pressure condition, a specific aspect of control was to balance discomfort about one's level of preparation with a confident appearance: “I tried to maintain focus on coming across confident, because even though the music wasn’t at the standard I wanted it to be at, I thought acting confident would help me feel more secure with the performance” (H20). Striving for a confident appearance and using positive self-talk for confidence relates to the category “thoughts that give confidence” by Buma et al. (2015) and Oudejans et al. (2017). The authors of these studies seem to understand it in a rather broad sense and also include mentions of visual imagery, being in the moment, and trusting oneself. In our data, visual imagery was explicitly music-related. Furthermore, our participants did not describe being in the moment and trusting themselves as giving them confidence. Instead, their responses seemed to relate more to how they perceived the quality and handled the dynamic of their focus.

Theme 4: “My Mind Varied Its Focus Quite a Bit”—Quality and Dynamic of One's Focus

The fourth theme alludes to descriptions and reflections of the kind of focus that participants employed, providing further insights not just on “what” participants were focusing on but also on “how” they perceived or managed their focus. We identified two subthemes, focus along a timeline and change of focus. The subtheme focus along a timeline subsumes elements of focus that related to the “what” of attentional focus in a temporal dimension: participants referred to whether they stayed in the present moment (or not), to the future by anticipating what would come next, or to the past by ruminating about mistakes made. We also considered participants as able to focus on the present moment when they described their focus as well-maintained, when they trusted themselves, or when they were actively listening to or enjoying their playing. Listening and internal singing were particularly emphasized as means to stay focused in the present: “I also stopped my mind from drifting by listening to the sound I was making—drawing my attention to the melody” (H20). This quote is also an example of meta-awareness as the participant refers to their wandering mind while also focusing on a particular music-related object (Lutz et al., 2015), in this case the melody of the piece. Another indication of present-moment focus was the absence of evaluative thoughts, to “concentrate on the music without rating my playing now” (H18). Yet another way of being in the moment referred to trusting oneself: “I try to trust my hands and brain” (L46). In particular, trusting one's memory provided more attentional capacity for musical aspects: “I trusted my memory most of the time, and this allowed me to think more about my tone quality and musicality” (H08).

Participants’ focus along a timeline also moved from the present moment to the future, such as when they described being concerned about upcoming challenges and anticipating difficult passages, sometimes actively avoiding mistakes or (memory) slips: “being as prepared as possible for known slip ups and tricky corners” (L04); “my focus [of] attention [was] on to play without mistake” (L31). When performing for the expert jury in the high-pressure condition, they also anticipated potential feedback: “my thoughts sometimes went to the musicians who will give the feedback, and whether they will like my performance or not” (H15). Such a focus could represent a worry or distraction, yet the participant further elaborated: “But this didn’t stress me too much and I am glad I could stay focused about my playing without getting too anxious.”

In other instances, however, participants directly described worries and distractions, for example, about difficult passages, but also by the recording set-up: “At one point in the Mozart I was distracted by wondering if the camera microphone was definitely turned on (it was!)” (H08). Worrying about movement execution was one specific example of conscious monitoring. In line with theories on choking under pressure (Gröpel & Mesagno, 2019), some participants perceived it as detrimental to performance under high pressure: “Sometimes worrying about which finger to put down, which always created trouble” (H34). The disruption of automated movement was also described as having an impact on subsequent passages: “My left hand, getting the notes, and when [it] went wrong, thought about that and then made the next part go wrong too” (H03). Judging how they had played or ruminating about mistakes were also the main concerns when participants’ focus along a timeline was on the past: “while I was playing through, instead of focusing on current and upcoming phrases, my attention was mainly on judging whatever I had just played, mainly in a negative way” (L19).

Change of focus occurred often, as participants’ focus did not always remain the same or was not always directed toward the same aspect(s). They sometimes explicitly commented on this or described their focus as varied. This subtheme was also characterized by difficulties in staying present, being distracted, and attempting to refocus or manage focus. It forms another aspect of the “how” of participants’ focus. When they noticed distractions, worries, or negative judgment, they sometimes actively changed their focus. Under high pressure, they managed their focus by directing their attention toward cue words or focus points, for example:

I tried holding of a couple of words lightly in my mind/body, which I had used in my pre-performance centering technique. These words were “open” and “release” to keep my playing and body feeling light, so I was able to feel the flow of the music, and able to change characters. (H35)

Deliberately changing their focus made it possible to be less affected by mistakes and nervousness, especially when focusing on interpretation and musical intention instead: “When mistakes happened, to forget them and remember that the performance is still going. Continue the musical idea regardless of the mistakes” (H09). Such a deliberate change of focus was also described in more detail:

I tried to focus on the music and where to go with the phrase but a couple [of] times caught myself thinking about a missed shift or other inaccuracy when it had already happened. I tried to refocus and not put too much attention on how I played and rather how I want to play the next bit. (H28)

When worrying about mistakes, a focus on enjoyment could be used as a counterbalance to regain present moment awareness: “I was really worried about not making any mistakes but generally I was trying to enjoy what I was playing” (H06). Of all the positive emotions identified, enjoyment was the only one that participants mentioned in both high- and low-pressure conditions; all other positive emotions were either mentioned under low or high pressure. As noted by Buma et al. (2015), focusing on the music can also be connected to enjoying it, and, in light of our results, focusing on enjoying the music may be used to counteract worries. This also resonates with the previous finding that focusing on being in the moment, communicating with the audience, and on the sound may be appropriate for a successful performance (Clark et al., 2014).

Our participants thus described focusing on the past, the present, and the future, and demonstrated meta-awareness of how they directed their attentional focus (Lutz et al., 2015). Meta-awareness as a dimension of mindfulness was especially visible when they referred to monitoring their attentional focus: “I was wondering if it would be better if I would try to get involved or go automatically” (L02); “I try to reach a mental state which has a high degree of body and mind awareness without focusing on any technical elements” (L26); “I’m having problems to stay present, it's like all white in my mind” (L27). When experiencing anxiety, meta-awareness can also be dysfunctional, for example when one is aware of one's elevated heart rate, which may trigger anxiety-related thoughts (Lutz et al., 2015). If such thoughts are interpreted as reflections of reality, they may sustain or even heighten one's anxiety (Lutz et al., 2015). Oudejans et al. (2017) argued that suppression of task-irrelevant attention on worries and disturbing thoughts under pressure might be a successful strategy applied by professionals. This may be a short-term coping mechanism, but in the long term, defusion from thoughts and internal experiences as a way of dereification might be a more desirable way of managing one's attentional focus (Shaw et al., 2020).

Limitations

This study was limited to aspiring professional violinists and violists. Choosing such a homogenous group of participants allowed us to request standardized audition repertoire, invite expert violinists and violists as jurors for the high-pressure condition, and specifically refer to previous studies with upper string players (Allingham et al., 2021; Allingham & Wöllner, 2022). However, it may not allow conclusions to be drawn about other instrumentalists or singers.

Asking musicians about their focus and thoughts immediately after their performance is as close as one can get to an accurate account of their perceived attentional focus during performance, but of course it is still retrospective. A different approach that has not yet been explored in music performance research is the “probe-caught method,” in which participants would be stopped during the performance and asked where their attention is directed (Weinstein, 2018). However, this would greatly limit the ecological validity of the investigation and probably also distract participants. In this study, we used performance settings that were as realistic as possible and did not interfere with participants’ playing. It is possible that the responses we obtained reflected only a part of participants’ thoughts and attentional focus as they may have reported only what remained salient to them when looking back to their performance.

We were careful with coding responses beyond their immediate content—for example, when participants did not describe thoughts about mistakes or evaluation as distracting or worrying. We found this particularly challenging in terms of conscious monitoring. It remains unclear whether mentioning a focus on a body part already indicates that participants are interfering with their automated movements. Furthermore, we would like to raise the question of whether (potentially maladaptively) focusing on conscious monitoring during music performance is limited to movements or may also extend to one's rhythmic precision, for example.

We could thus not conclude which attentional focus was most beneficial to performance as our results do not indicate whether it is necessarily adaptive or maladaptive to direct one's attention toward different aspects of the performance (e.g., thoughts, sensations, the music). Our participants often did not elaborate on the effect that a specific focus might have had for them. Future research could use interviews directly after the performance to explore more contextual data about attentional focus and thoughts during the performance, as well as the potential effect(s) of employing a certain focus.

Practical Implications and Future Research

Recording oneself has become an important skill for aspiring professional musicians and may even be mandatory in applications for orchestral auditions. Participants in this study performed and recorded themselves at home (low-pressure) and then for an expert jury who gave individual feedback (high-pressure). While some participants reported being relaxed and tired under low pressure, others described moments of panic and stress and implied that recording oneself was a stressor, even when no expert jury was present. Thinking about recording equipment, setting, or multiple takes was mentioned as distracting. Getting more used to recording, and potentially also receiving specific practical advice, may help music students maintain their focus in recording situations.

Furthermore, responses indicated that when recording without a live audience, one might have to think about or even deliberately imagine (potential) listeners to enrich the performance. Interventions with imagery training could address this aspect of recording. So far, imagery interventions have primarily included motor or auditory imagery (e.g., Steenstrup et al., 2021) and could thus be extended using a more comprehensive framework in the future (Wright et al., 2014).

Previous studies of instructions for attentional focus required participants to maintain a focus exclusively on one particular object or in one particular direction, such as internally or externally. By contrast, our findings from performance situations indicated that performers often coordinate different aspects simultaneously. This relates to the concepts of divided attention (monitoring several streams of information at once) and selective attention (monitoring just one stream of information), which have been shown to be of particular importance for musicians (Wöllner & Halpern, 2016). Future research might benefit from taking these concepts into account when discussing how musicians should manage their focus between aspects of accuracy and interpretation during performance.

How one's focus should be managed is also relevant to instrumental or voice teaching. Referring to the distinction between internal and external focus, a case study showed that music teachers consistently directed learners’ attentional focus toward both internal and external aspects (Parsons & Simmons, 2021). The authors argue that instructions to use a particular attentional focus should be aligned with the process of learning and skill development: on a beginner's level, an internal focus might be beneficial until a certain degree of automaticity is reached that then allows a more external focus away from the body. It has recently been suggested that conservatoire students engaging in singing, gesturing, vividly imagining, and seeking musical variation as tools to focus externally rather than internally may achieve higher performance accuracy than when applying their usual practice methods (Williams et al., 2023).

Future research will have to further elucidate which kinds of instructions are needed for different skill levels and for teaching new skills or transferring already learned skills to performance under pressure (Parsons & Simmons, 2021). Regarding future research on the paradigm of internal and external focus, a more differentiated definition, particularly of external focus, may be needed for music performance (Hohagen & Immerz, 2024). In addition, the dynamic quality of musicians’ attentional focus during performance (and recording oneself) could be taken into account. Finally, as this study was limited to upper string players, future research could also provide a comparison of different instruments.

Conclusion

This study provides insights into the attentional focus and thoughts of aspiring professional violinists and violists during performing and recording audition excerpts. We expand previous studies’ findings by elaborating on participants’ music-related focus, and on the “how” in addition to the objects of their focus. Our findings indicate that musicians’ attentional focus can be directed to observing but also to controlling the process(es) of the performance, that is, regulating arousal, executing the required technical skills, interpreting the piece, expressing its character(s), and communicating with the audience. Based on these findings, we also suggest practical implications for music education and possibilities for future research.

None of our participants mentioned exclusively one object of their attentional focus during the performance. Based on our findings, we argue that musicians’ attentional focus during performance may move and change more dynamically and also be more multifaceted than previous research might suggest. Most importantly, our participants described some ways to manage their focus in a positive and adaptive sense, but negative thoughts, feelings, and sensations still dominated responses. Staying in the present moment and enjoying the music was thus depicted as a desirable attentional focus. Instead of suppressing negative thoughts, music students might benefit from learning to perceive thoughts as “transient, insubstantial mental events rather than accurate reflections of reality” (Chambers et al., 2009, p. 562), thereby practicing defusion from their internal experiences (Hayes et al., 2011).

To reach and maintain a task-relevant and adaptive attentional focus, we conclude that in addition to investigating the effects of attentional control training and focus instructions, it seems promising for music students to understand how to defuse from self-judgment or evaluative thoughts through mindfulness and acceptance interventions. Future research should therefore investigate such interventions not just from the standpoint of reducing music performance anxiety but also to improve focus on the present moment and, ultimately, audition performance.