Perceived effort and exertion.

Abstract

People who move will all engage in perceived exertion (PE) to some degree. Perceptions of exertion accompany physical activity and play an important role in effort-regulation during physical work. Sensations perceived to be within the "comfort zone" will indicate no need to make any effort adjustments, whereas sensations perceived as too intense will inform a decision to adjust work output. CONCEPTUAL ISSUESDespite its ubiquity, the concept of PE is difficult to define. Perception of exertion involves a complex array of factors, including afferent feedback from the working organs, muscles, and joints; subjective perceptions of force, resistance, or strain; psychophysiological perceptions of breathlessness and nausea; psychological components such as motivation, determination, and task-aversion, as well as input from the brain' s central motor command system. Feelings of pain and discomfort, although distinct, can also affect the overall PE.Further complicating the proper definition of PE is the fact that the terms exertion and effort are often used interchangeably, although these perceptions are different but related psychological constructs. The distinctions between the two perceptions are explored in depth later in the chapter. As an initial point of clarity, we use the term perceived exertion in the first part of the chapter because of its widespread use in the relevant literature. Later, we speak more specifically to perceived effort, which better reflects the array of related perceptions during exercise, of which exertion is only one (see also Razon, Hutchinson, & Tenenbaum, 2012). History of Perceived ExertionGunnar Borg was the first to define and measure PE in the 1960s. Borg, a psychophysicist, was interested in how the perception of exertion develops with changes in workload and whether perception ratings might provide an indicator of performance capacity as a supplement to the physiological values (Borg, 1962). To measure these perceptual estimates, Borg introduced a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale (Borg, 1978). The most recent iteration of the RPE scale measures the intensity of PE on a 15-point scale ranging from 6 (no exertion at all) to 20 (maximal exertion). The numeric range was designed to parallel the heart rate (HR) range of a normal healthy male (60-200 beats/minute). Borg later developed the CR10 scale (Borg, 1982), which satisfied the psychophysical requirements of ratio scaling. The CR10 scale has a primary numerical range of 0 to 10, with the first verbal anchor at 0.5. The upper anchor of Extremely strong, maximal is at 10, although there is no fixed upper endpoint. This gives the option to select a maximum intensity greater than 10 by

Men Exhibit Greater Pain Pressure Thresholds and Times to Task Failure but Not Performance Fatigability Following Self-Paced Exercise

“…It has previously been shown that in order to maintain a constant level of exertion, individuals must continuously reduce force production, which typically exhibits a curvilinear pattern across time in men and women (Keller et al., 2021; Keller, Housh, Hill, et al., 2018; Keller et al., 2019a; Keller, Housh, Hill, et al., 2020). Hutchinson and Tenenbaum (2019) highlighted the significance of differentiating effort from exertion such that exertion has been related to sensations of pain and/or discomfort, whereas effort is a cognitive feeling of work associated with voluntary actions. It has been suggested that the perception of exertion is likely modulated by afferent feedback from the working muscles (i.e., group III/IV muscle afferents), subjective perceptions of force, inputs from a central motor command system, fatigue, and changes in motivation or task aversion (Hutchinson & Tenenbaum, 2019; Smirmaul, 2012).…”

“…Hutchinson and Tenenbaum (2019) highlighted the significance of differentiating effort from exertion such that exertion has been related to sensations of pain and/or discomfort, whereas effort is a cognitive feeling of work associated with voluntary actions. It has been suggested that the perception of exertion is likely modulated by afferent feedback from the working muscles (i.e., group III/IV muscle afferents), subjective perceptions of force, inputs from a central motor command system, fatigue, and changes in motivation or task aversion (Hutchinson & Tenenbaum, 2019; Smirmaul, 2012). Because these terms (i.e., effort vs. exertion) have different operational definitions and are associated with different fatigue-related symptoms, there is a rationale for theorizing different underlying mechanisms (perhaps not entirely exclusive of each other) that modulating their separate perceptions.…”

“…Participants were blinded to force output as well as the elapsed time to minimize any potential pacing strategies. Consistent with Hutchinson and Tenenbaum’s (2019) definition of exertion, we reminded participants to be aware of sensations such as strain, intensity, discomfort, and fatigue felt during each task. The sustained leg extension was terminated once the participant indicated that he or she could no longer maintain a force corresponding to RPE = 5 or force production was equal to zero.…”

The Effects of Anchor Schemes on Performance Fatigability, Neuromuscular Responses and the Perceived Sensations That Contributed to Task Termination

“…At higher intensities, however, neuromuscular and physiological factors override the influence of the psychological factors [38]. In addition, Hutchinson and Tenenbaum [39] suggested that during low intensity exercise, focus can easily shift between internal and external stimuli, but during high intensity or maximal exercise, focus cannot be voluntarily controlled " . .…”

“…Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of anchor schemes on TTF, performance fatigability, neuromuscular responses, and the perceived sensations that contributed to task termination following sustained, isometric forearm flexion tasks. Based on the findings of previous studies [3,13,22,31,32,38], it was hypothesized that (1) TTF would be greater for the RPE fatigue task (RPEFT) versus the torque fatigue task (TRQFT) [13]; (2) there would be no differences between anchor schemes for the fatigue-induced changes in performance fatigability or neuromuscular responses [13]; (3) perceived fatigability of the muscles involved with the forearm flexion tasks would be greater for the TRQFT versus the RPEFT; and (4) the psychological factors related to perceived fatigability would have a greater level of contribution to the decision to terminate the task for the RPEFT than the TRQFT [38,39].…”