Literature DB >> 21533806

Influence of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon 10-mile time trial cycling performance.

Mathew G Wilson1, Andy M Lane, Chris J Beedie, Abdulaziz Farooq.   

Abstract

The objective of the study is to examine the impact of accurate and inaccurate 'split-time' feedback upon a 10-mile time trial (TT) performance and to quantify power output into a practically meaningful unit of variation. Seven well-trained cyclists completed four randomised bouts of a 10-mile TT on a SRM™ cycle ergometer. TTs were performed with (1) accurate performance feedback, (2) without performance feedback, (3) and (4) false negative and false positive 'split-time' feedback showing performance 5% slower or 5% faster than actual performance. There were no significant differences in completion time, average power output, heart rate or blood lactate between the four feedback conditions. There were significantly lower (p < 0.001) average [Formula: see text] (ml min(-1)) and [Formula: see text] (l min(-1)) scores in the false positive (3,485 ± 596; 119 ± 33) and accurate (3,471 ± 513; 117 ± 22) feedback conditions compared to the false negative (3,753 ± 410; 127 ± 27) and blind (3,772 ± 378; 124 ± 21) feedback conditions. Cyclists spent a greater amount of time in a '20 watt zone' 10 W either side of average power in the negative feedback condition (fastest) than the accurate feedback (slowest) condition (39.3 vs. 32.2%, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the 10-mile TT performance time between accurate and inaccurate feedback conditions, despite significantly lower average [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] scores in the false positive and accurate feedback conditions. Additionally, cycling with a small variation in power output (10 W either side of average power) produced the fastest TT. Further psycho-physiological research should examine the mechanism(s) why lower [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] scores are observed when cycling in a false positive or accurate feedback condition compared to a false negative or blind feedback condition.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21533806     DOI: 10.1007/s00421-011-1977-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol        ISSN: 1439-6319            Impact factor:   3.078


  14 in total

1.  Pacing strategies during a cycling time trial with simulated headwinds and tailwinds.

Authors:  G Atkinson; A Brunskill
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 2.  Do conscious thoughts cause behavior?

Authors:  Roy F Baumeister; E J Masicampo; Kathleen D Vohs
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 24.137

3.  Non-random fluctuations in power output during self-paced exercise.

Authors:  R Tucker; A Bester; E V Lambert; T D Noakes; C L Vaughan; A St Clair Gibson
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2006-09-15       Impact factor: 13.800

Review 4.  Distribution of power output during cycling: impact and mechanisms.

Authors:  Greg Atkinson; Oliver Peacock; Alan St Clair Gibson; Ross Tucker
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 11.136

5.  Previous experience influences pacing during 20 km time trial cycling.

Authors:  D Micklewright; E Papadopoulou; J Swart; T Noakes
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2009-04-12       Impact factor: 13.800

Review 6.  The placebo effect in sports performance: a brief review.

Authors:  Christopher J Beedie; Abigail J Foad
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 11.136

7.  Influence of feedback and prior experience on pacing during a 4-km cycle time trial.

Authors:  Alexis R Mauger; Andrew M Jones; Craig A Williams
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.411

8.  Power output during a professional men's road-cycling tour.

Authors:  Tammie R Ebert; David T Martin; Brian Stephens; Robert T Withers
Journal:  Int J Sports Physiol Perform       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 4.010

Review 9.  The analysis and utilization of cycling training data.

Authors:  Simon A Jobson; Louis Passfield; Greg Atkinson; Gabor Barton; Philip Scarf
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 11.136

10.  The effect of non-contingent and accurate performance feedback on pacing and time trial performance in 4-km track cycling.

Authors:  A R Mauger; A M Jones; C A Williams
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2009-10-25       Impact factor: 13.800

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Physiological and psychological effects of deception on pacing strategy and performance: a review.

Authors:  Hollie S Jones; Emily L Williams; Craig A Bridge; Dave Marchant; Adrian W Midgley; Dominic Micklewright; Lars R Mc Naughton
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  The Influence of a Pacesetter on Psychological Responses and Pacing Behavior during a 1600 m Run.

Authors:  Christopher L Fullerton; Andrew M Lane; Tracey J Devonport
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 2.988

3.  Cycling in the Absence of Task-Related Feedback: Effects on Pacing and Performance.

Authors:  Benjamin L M Smits; Remco C J Polman; Bert Otten; Gert-Jan Pepping; Florentina J Hettinga
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 4.566

4.  A Monetary Reward Alters Pacing but Not Performance in Competitive Cyclists.

Authors:  Sabrina Skorski; Kevin G Thompson; Richard J Keegan; Tim Meyer; Chris R Abbiss
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 4.566

Review 5.  The Manipulation of Pace within Endurance Sport.

Authors:  Sabrina Skorski; Chris R Abbiss
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 4.566

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.