LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Jones, HS; Williams, EL; Marchant, DC; Sparks, SA; Bridge, CA; Midgley, AW; Mc Naughton, LR (2015)
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Feedback deception is used to explore the importance of expectations on pacing strategy and performance in self-paced exercise. The deception of feedback from a previous performance explores the importance of experience knowledge on exercise behaviour. This study aimed to explore the acute and residual effects of the deception of previous performance speed on perceptual responses and performance in cycling time trials.A parallel-group design.Twenty cyclists were assigned to a control or deception group and performed 16.1km time trials. Following a ride-alone baseline time trial (FBL), participants performed against a virtual avatar representing their FBL performance (PACER), then completed a subsequent ride-alone time trial (SUB). The avatar in the deception group, however, was unknowingly set 2% faster than their FBL.Both groups performed faster in PACER than FBL and SUB (p<0.05), but SUB was not significantly different to FBL. Affect was more negative and Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE) were higher in PACER than FBL in the deception group (p<0.05).The presence of a visual pacer acutely facilitated time trial performance, but deceptive feedback had no additional effect on performance. The deception group, however, experienced more negative affect and higher RPE in PACER, whereas these responses were absent in the control group. The performance improvement was not sustained in SUB, suggesting no residual performance effects occurred.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1 Stoate I, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners. J Sports Sci 2012; 30:815-23.
    • 2 Hutchinson JC, Sherman T, Martinovic N, et al. The effect of manipulated self-efficacy on perceived and sustained effort. J Appl Sport Psych 2008; 20:457-72.
    • 3 Smits BLM, Pepping GJ, Hettinga FJ. Pacing and decision making in sport and exercise: The roles of perception and action in the regulation of exercise intensity. Sports Med 2014; 44:763-75.
    • 4 Renfree A, Martin L, Micklewright D. Application of decision-making theory to the regulation of muscular work rate during self-paced competitive endurance activity. Sports Med 2013; 44:147-58.
    • 5 Renfree A, West J, Corbett M, et al. Complex interplay between determinants of pacing and performance during 20-km cycle time trials. Int J Sports Phys Perf 2012; 7:121-9.
    • 6 Beedie CJ, Lane AM, Wilson MG. A possible role for emotion and emotion regulation in physiological responses to false performance feedback in 10 mile laboratory cycling. Appl Psychophys Biof 2012; 30:1-9.
    • 7 Nikolopoulos V, Arkinstall MJ, Hawley JA. Pacing strategy in simulated cycle time-trials is based on perceived rather than actual distance. J Sci Med Sport 2001; 4:212-9.
    • 8 Szalma JL, Hancock PA, Dember WN, et al. Training for vigilance: The effect of knowledge of results format and dispositional optimism and pessimism on performance and stress. British J Psych 2006; 97:115-35.
    • 9 Micklewright D, Papadopoulou E, Swart J, et al. Previous experience influences pacing during 20 km time trial cycling. Br J Sports Med 2010; 44:952-60.
    • 10 Mauger AR, Jones AM, Williams CA. Influence of feedback and prior experience on pacing during a 4-km cycle time trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41:451-8.
    • 11 Mauger AR, Jones AM, Williams CA. The effect of non-contingent and accurate performance feedback on pacing and time trial performance in 4-km track cycling. Br J Sports Med 2011; 45:225-9.
    • 12 Stone MR, Thomas K, Wilkinson M, et al. Effects of deception on exercise performance: Implications for determinants of fatigue in humans. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44:534- 41.
    • 13 Wilmore JH. Influence of motivation on physical work capacity and performance. J Appl Phys 1968; 24:459-63.
    • 14 Paterson S, Marino FE. Effect of deception of distance on prolonged cycling performance. Perc Mot Skills 2004; 98:1017-26.
    • 15 Ekkekakis P, Hargreaves EA, Parfitt G. Invited Guest Editorial: Envisioning the next fifty years of research on the exercise-affect relationship. Psych Sport Exerc 2013; 14:751- 8.
    • 16 Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY, Freeman, 1997.
    • 17 Baron B, Moullan F, Deruelle F, et al. The role of emotions on pacing strategies and performance in middle and long duration sport events. Br J Sports Med, 2011; 45:511- 7.
    • 18 Parry D, Chinnasamy C, Micklewright D. Optic flow influences perceived exertion during cycling. J Sport Exerc Psych 2012; 34:444-56.
    • 19 De Pauw K, Roelands B, Cheung SS, et al. Guidelines to classify subject groups in sportscience research. Int J Sports Phys Perf 2013; 8:111-22.
    • 20 Wooles A, Keen P, Palfreeman R. Protocols used for the physiological testing of the Great Britain Cycling Team. Test Methods Manual 2003.
    • 21 Stone MR, Thomas K, Wilkinson M, et al. Consistency of perceptual and metabolic responses to a laboratory-based simulated 4,000-m cycling time trial. Eur J Appl Phys 2011; 111:1807-13.
    • 22 Paton CD, Hopkins WG. Variation in performance of elite cyclists from race to race. Eur J Sport Sci 2006; 6:25-31.
    • 23 Hardy CJ, Rejeski WJ. Not what, but how one feels: The measurement of affect during exercise. J Sport Exerc Psych 1989; 11:304-17.
    • 24 Borg G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scand J Rehab Med 1970; 2:92-8.
    • 25 Welch AS, Hulley A, Beauchamp M. Affect and self-efficacy responses during moderateintensity exercise among low-active women: The effect of cognitive appraisal. J Sport Exerc Psych 2010; 32:154-75.
    • 26 Williams EL, Jones HS, S Sparks A, et al. Competitor presence reduces internal attentional focus and improves 16.1 km cycling time trial performance. J Sci Med Sport 2014; 18:486-91.
    • 27 Corbett J, Barwood MJ, Ouzounoglou A, et al. Influence of competition on performance and pacing during cycling exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44:509-15.
    • 28 Marcora S. Do we really need a central governor to explain brain regulation of exercise performance? Eur J Appl Phys 2008; 104:929-31.
    • 29 Brehm JW, Self EA. The intensity of motivation. Ann Rev Psych 1989; 40:109-131.
    • 30 McAuley E, Courneya KS. Self-efficacy relationships with affective and exertion responses to exercise. J Appl Soc Psych 1992; 22:312-26.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article