Anticipation Bias During A Cycle Ergometer Perceptual Production Protocol

Fonzi, Laura; Kim, Yoon; Shouey, Lindsey A.; Welikonich, Michael J.; Robertson, Robert J.; Goss, Fredric L.; Aaron, Deborah J.

doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000272978.82010.92

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…50% VO 2 R). Limited published data are available in regard to anticipation bias, however the few studies that are available indicate that anticipation bias does not impact the ability to self-regulate exercise intensity (Swank et al 2005;Fonzi et al 2007). …”

Section: Hr and Vo 2 At 50% Of Vo 2 Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intensity Selection and Regulation using the OMNI Scale of Perceived Exertion during Intermittent Exercise

Schafer

Goss

Robertson

et al. 2008

Medicine &Amp; Science in Sports &Amp; Exercise

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine if college age males and females (18 to 25 year old) can self-regulate exercise intensity during a 20 minute intermittent bout of aerobic exercise on the treadmill using the OMNI RPE scale. All subjects completed an estimation trial (EST) graded exercise test using the Bruce protocol to measure heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO 2 ), and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) every minute until exhaustion. Using data from the EST, target RPEs corresponding to 50% and 70% of VO 2 R were determined via regression analysis. A production trial (PROD) was then performed in which subjects titrated speed and grade on the treadmill to elicit the target RPEs corresponding to 50% and 70% of VO 2 R in counterbalance order. At an RPE corresponding to 50% of VO 2 R, HR and VO 2 were significantly higher in the PROD compared to the EST for counterbalance order I (70% -50%) (p < .001). However, there was no significant difference in HR and VO 2 between the EST and PROD for counterbalance order II (50% -70%) (p > .05). When subjects exercised at an RPE corresponding to 70% of VO 2 R, the HR was significantly higher in the PROD compared to the EST for counterbalance order I (70% -50%), (p < .05). However, there was no significant difference in HR between the EST and PROD trials for counterbalance order II (50% -70%), (p >.05). At an RPE corresponding to 70% of VO 2 R, there was no significant difference in the VO 2 between the EST and PROD trials (p > .05). Subjects were also able to perceptually differentiate between the two target RPEs corresponding to 50% and 70% of VO 2 R iv as indicated by the significant difference in HR (p < .05) and VO 2 (p < .05) between the two prescribed PROD RPE intensities. The present investigation indicates that subjects were able to use RPE to self-regulate exercise intensity during 20 min of exercise at varying intensity when starting the exercise bout at the RPE corresponding to 50% of VO 2 R.

show abstract

Section: Hr and Vo 2 At 50% Of Vo 2 Rmentioning

confidence: 99%