Search

Objectives: Two studies investigated expert-novice differences in information-seeking behaviour, cognitions and performance during cycling time trials (TT). Study 1 examined trained and novice cyclist’s cognitions whilst performing a TT, using a Think Aloud (TA) protocol and eye-tracking techniques. Study 2 investigated expertise differences during alone and competitive TTs. Methods: in Study 1, six trained and seven novice cyclists performed a 16.1 km TT. In Study 2, eight trained and ten novice cyclists performed three 16.1 km TT; a baseline TT, an alone TT and a trial against a virtual competitor. In both studies, participants were asked to TA and in Study 1 they also wore mobile gaze-tracking glasses. Performance feedback and a simulated TT course were visually displayed during all trials, as was a virtual avatar during the competitor trial. Verbalisations were coded into primary and secondary themes. Cognitions and pacing strategies were compared between groups and across the duration of the TTs. In Study 1, eye-tracking data for total dwell time and gaze frequency were calculated for each area of interest (Time Elapsed, Power, Heart Rate, Cadence, Distance Covered, Speed and Course Scenery). Results: In Study 1, no significant differences were found in information-seeking behaviour between groups, however there were expertise differences in the cognitive strategies used. Trained cyclists’ verbalisations were more performance-relevant (i.e., power output), whereas the untrained group were more focused on task completion (i.e., distance and time) and irrelevant information. Both groups talked more about distance and motivational thoughts in the later stages of the trial, and dwell time on distance feedback also increased in this final 4 km. In Study 2, the trained group performed faster than the untrained group but there were no significant differences in pace or performance between alone and competitive TTs for either group. Differences in cognitions were found

There is considerable research interest in psychological aspects of endurance performance. Until recently, research typically lacked a theoretical underpinning, and contemporary research is particularly informed by the psychobiological model of endurance performance. In this critical review, we propose that psychological theories relating to self-regulation, particularly self-efficacy theory and the process model of emotion regulation, could shed more light on how endurance performance is determined and lead to additional understanding of how psychological interventions can be used. We argue that people encounter fewer stressors in most experimental studies than are encountered before and during real-life events. In addition, we argue that most research conducted to date has focused on the forethought and performance phases of self-regulation, rather than the self-reflection phase, and research has not considered the cyclical nature of self-regulation. We also argue that if research participants are not endurance athletes, then their motivation may not be self-determined, and self-regulatory learning may not take place. Recommendations are given for future research, and evidence-based guidance is offered on enhancing performance and improving the quality of experience for endurance athletes.

Objectives: This study investigated cognitions of cyclists during a competitive time trial (TT) event using Think Aloud (TA) protocol analysis. Design: Single group, observational design. Method: Fifteen male and three female cyclists from the North West of England verbalised their thoughts throughout an outdoor competitive 16.1 km cycling time trial (Level 2 TA). Verbalisations were recorded using iVue Horizon 1080P camera glasses. Data was transcribed verbatim, analysed using deductive content analysis and grouped into themes: (i) Pain And Discomfort (Fatigue, Pain), (ii) External Feedback (Time, Speed, Heart Rate), (iii) Environment (Surroundings, Traffic and Other Cyclists), (iv) Pace and Distance (Pace, Distance). The number of verbalisations within each theme were analysed by distance quartile using Friedman tests to examine changes in cognitions over time. Results: Associative themes, including Fatigue and Pain, were verbalised more frequently in the earlier stages of the TT and less in the final quartile, whereas verbalisations about Distance significantly increased in the last quartile. Conclusions: This study demonstrates how a novel data collection method can capture in-event cognitions of endurance athletes. It provides an important extension to previous literature, showing how individuals may process and attend to information over time during an exercise bout. Future research should establish the relationship between performance and cognitive processes.

Objectives Three studies involved the investigation of concurrent cognitive processes and pacing behaviour during a 16.1 km cycling time trial (TT) using a novel Think Aloud (TA) protocol. Study 1 examined trained cyclist's cognitions over time whilst performing a real-life 16.1 km time trial (TT), using TA protocol. Study 2, included both trained and untrained participants who performed a 16.1 km TT in a laboratory whilst using TA. Study 3 investigated participants' experiences of using TA during a TT performance. Method Study 1 involved 10 trained cyclists performing a real life 16.1 km TT. Study 2 included 10 trained and 10 untrained participants who performed a laboratory-based 16.1 km TT. In both studies, all participants were asked to TA. Time, power output, speed and heart rate were measured. Verbalisations were coded into the following themes (i) internal sensory monitoring, (ii) active self-regulation, (iii) outward monitoring (iv) distraction. Cognitions and pacing strategies were compared between groups and across the duration of the TT. In study 3 all participants were interviewed post TT to explore perceptions of using TA. Results Study 1 and 2 found cognitions and pacing changed throughout the TT. Active self-regulation was verbalised most frequently. Differences were found between laboratory and field verbalisations and trained and untrained participants. Study 3 provided support for the use of TA in endurance research. Recommendations were provided for future application. Conclusion Through the use of TA this study has been able to contribute to the pacing and cycling literature and to the understanding of endurance athletes’ cognitions.

Much research has referred to the complexity of research methods modules within undergraduate degree programmes. Less attention has been paid to the objective understanding of alignment between research methods and final year dissertations. This study explored relationships across Sport and Exercise Science (SES) and Sports Therapy (ST) programmes within a UK-based Higher Education institution. Analysis revealed females (N=73) outperformed males (N=117) at Levels 4/5, and SES students outperformed ST at Level 6. The Level 5 statistics assessment explained the lowest variance in the dissertation, suggesting poor alignment in curriculum design. Future research should consider the efficacy of statistics-based modules.

Purpose: To use eye-tracking technology to directly compare information acquisition behavior of experienced and novice cyclists during a self-paced 10 mile (16.1 km) time-trial. Method: Two groups of novice (N=10) and experienced cyclists (N=10) performed a 10-mile self-paced time-trial (TT) on two separate occasions during which a number of feedback variables (speed, distance, power output, cadence, heart rate, and time) were projected within their view. A large RPE scale was also presented next to the projected information and participants. Participants were fitted with a head-mounted eye32 tracker and heart rate monitor. Results: Experienced cyclists performed both time-trials quicker than novices (F1,18=6.8, P=.018) during which they primarily looked at speed (9 of 10 participants) whereas novices primarily looked at distance (6 of 10 participants). Experienced cyclists looked at primary information for longer than novices across the whole time-trial (24.5±4.2% vs. 34.2±6.1%, t18=4.2, P<0.001) and less frequently than novices during the last quarter of the time-trial (49±19 vs. 80±32, t18=-2.6, P=0.009). The most common combination of primary and secondary information looked at by experienced cyclists was speed and distance respectively. Looking at ten different primary-secondary feedback permutations, the novices were less consistent than the experienced cyclists in their information acquisition behavior. Conclusion: This study challenges the importance placed on knowledge of the endpoint to pacing in previous models, especially for experienced cyclists for whom distance feedback was looked at secondary to, but in conjunction with, information about speed. Novice cyclists have a greater dependence upon distance feedback, which they look at for shorter and more frequent periods of time than the experienced cyclists. Experienced cyclists are more selective and consistent in attention to feedback during time-trial cycling.

Laboratory based cycling time trials (TT) are widely used by both researchers and practitioners, as a method of assessing cycling performance in a controlled environment. Assessments of performance often use TT durations or distances between 20 min and one hour and in the UK the 10 mile (16.1 km) TT is the most frequently used race distance for trained cyclists. The 16.1 km TT has received relatively minimal, but increased attention as a performance criterion in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the reliability of 16.1 km TT performance in a large cohort of trained cyclists using the CompuTrainer cycle ergometer. Trained male cyclists (n = 58, mean±SD age 35±7 yr, height 179±6 cm, weight 79.1±9.4 kg, VO2max. 56.6±6.6 ml.kg.min-1, PPO 365±37 W) performed an initial incremental exercise test to determine PPO and VO2max. The participants then performed two 16.1 km TT on a CompuTrainer cycle ergometer separated by 3-7 days. Differences in time, power output and speed were determined using a Wilcoxon signed ranks or paired t-tests. Reproducibility of the TT performance measures was performed using the coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlations, and typical error (TE). There were no differences between any of the performance criteria for the whole cohort (Mean difference = 0.06 min, 0.09 km.h-1, 1.5 W, for time, mean speed and power respectively) between TT1 and TT2. All TT performance data were very reproducible (CV range = 1.1-2.7%) and demonstrated trivial or small TE. The slower cyclists demonstrated marginally lower reliability (CV range = 1.3-3.2%) compared to the fastest group (CV range = 0.7-2.0%). The 16.1 km TT on the CompuTrainer represents a very reliable performance criterion for trained cyclists. Interpretation of testretest performance outcomes should be performed in the context of the TE of each performance indicator.

The provision of performance-related feedback during exercise is acknowledged as an influential external cue used to inform pacing decisions. The provision of this feedback in a challenging or deceptive context allows research to explore how feedback can be used to improve performance and influence perceptual responses. However, the effects of deception on both acute and residual responses have yet to be explored, despite potential application for performance enhancement. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of challenging and deceptive feedback on perceptual responses and performance in self-paced cycling time trials (TT) and explored whether changes in performance are sustained in a subsequent TT following the disclosure of the deception. Seventeen trained male cyclists were assigned to either an accurate or deceptive feedback group and performed four 16.1 km cycling TTs; (1 and 2) ride-alone baseline TTs where a fastest baseline (FBL) performance was identified, (3) a TT against a virtual avatar representing 102% of their FBL performance (PACER), and (4) a subsequent ride-alone TT (SUB). The deception group, however, were initially informed that the avatar accurately represented their FBL, but prior to SUB were correctly informed of the nature of the avatar. Affect, self-efficacy and RPE were measured every quartile. Both groups performed PACER faster than FBL and SUB (p < 0.05) and experienced lower affect (p = 0.016), lower self-efficacy (p = 0.011), and higher RPE (p < 0.001) in PACER than FBL. No significant differences were found between FBL and SUB for any variable. The presence of the pacer rather than the manipulation of performance beliefs acutely facilitates TT performance and perceptual responses. Revealing that athletes' performance beliefs were falsely negative due to deceptive feedback provision has no effect on subsequent perceptions or performance. A single experiential exposure may not be sufficient to produce meaningful changes in the

OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN: A parallel-group design. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Purpose: Deceptive manipulations of performance intensity have previously been investigated in cycling time trials (TT) but used different magnitudes, methods, and task durations. This study examines previously used magnitudes of deception during 16.1-km TT and explores yet unexamined psychological responses. Methods: Twelve trained cyclists completed five TT, performing two baseline trials alone, one against a simulated dynamic avatar representing 102% of fastest baseline trial (TT102%), one against a 105% avatar (TT105%), and one against both avatars (TT102%,105%). Results: Deceptive use of competitors to disguise intensity manipulation enabled accomplishment of performance improvements greater than their perceived maximal (1.3%–1.7%). Despite a similar improvement in performance, during TT102%,105%, there was significantly lower affect and self-efficacy to continue pace than those during TT105% (P G 0.05), significantly lower self-efficacy to compete than that during TT102% (P = 0.004), and greater RPE than that during TTFBL (P G 0.001). Conclusions: Because the interpretation of performance information and perceptions depends on the manner in which it is presented, i.e., ‘‘framing effect,’’ it could be suggested that the summative effect of two opponents could have evoked negative perceptions despite eliciting a similar performance. Magnitudes of deception produce similar performance enhancement yet elicit diverse psychological responses mediated by the external competitive environment the participants were performing iN.

Objectives: Whilst the presence of a competitor has been found to improve performance, the mechanisms influencing the change in selected work rates during direct competition have been suggested but not specifically assessed. The aim was to investigate the physiological and psychological influences of a visual avatar competitor during a 16.1-km cycling time trial performance, using trained, competitive cyclists. Design: Randomised cross-over design. Methods: Fifteen male cyclists completed four 16.1 km cycling time trials on a cycle ergometer, performing two with a visual display of themselves as a simulated avatar (FAM and SELF), one with no visual display (DO), and one with themselves and an opponent as simulated avatars (COMP). Participants were informed the competitive avatar was a similar ability cyclist but it was actually a representation of their fastest previous performance. Results: Increased performance times were evident during COMP (27.8 ± 2.0 min) compared to SELF (28.7 ± 1.9 min) and DO (28.4 ± 2.3 min). Greater power output, speed and heart rate were apparent during COMP trial than SELF (p < 0.05) and DO (p ≤ 0.06). There were no differences between SELF and DO. Ratings of perceived exertion were unchanged across all conditions. Internal attentional focus was significantly reduced during COMP trial (p < 0.05), suggesting reduced focused on internal sensations during an increase in performance. Conclusions: Competitive cyclists performed significantly faster during a 16.1-km competitive trial than when performing maximally, without a competitor. The improvement in performance was elicited due to a greater external distraction, deterring perceived exertion.

The psychological construct of affect is proposed to significantly contribute to pacing decisions during exercise. Borg’s RPE scale, another important regulator of work rate, is criticized as an inadequate measure of the multiple perceptual responses experienced. This study aimed to examine power output distribution and associated changes in affect, self-efficacy, perceptual cues, HR, and respiratory gases during both 16.1- and 40-km self-paced cycling time trials (TT). Secondly, the differentiation between physical perceptions of exertion and sense of effort in self-paced exercise was investigated. Method: Fifteen trained male cyclists completed 16.1- and 40-km TT using a CompuTrainer cycle ergometer. Time, power output distribution, affect, self-efficacy, physical RPE (P-RPE), task effort and awareness (TEA), HR, and respiratory gases were measured throughout each TT. Linear mixed models explored associations of these variables with power output distribution and the relationship between P-RPE and TEA. Results: Similar pacing strategies were adopted in the 16.1- and 40-km TT (P = 0.31), and the main effects were found for affect (P = 0.001) and RER (P G 0.001). Interactions between affect (P = 0.037) and RER (P = 0.004), with condition, indicated closer associations with power output distribution in 16.1 km than that in 40 km TT. P-RPE was not significantly different from TEA (P = 0.053). Conclusion: A significant association between affect and power output distribution suggests that affective responses are task dependent even in self-paced exercise, and a greater association is demonstrated in higher intensity, 16.1 km TT. Furthermore, physical perceptions of exertion are not clearly differentiated from the sense of effort in self-paced exercise.

The aim of an optimal pacing strategy during exercise is to enhance performance whilst ensuring physiological limits are not surpassed, which has been shown to result in a metabolic reserve at the end of the exercise. There has been debate surrounding the theoretical models that have been proposed to explain how pace is regulated, with more recent research investigating a central control of exercise regulation. Deception has recently emerged as a common, practical approach to manipulate key variables during exercise. There are a number of ways in which deception interventions have been designed, each intending to gain particular insights into pacing behaviour and performance. Deception methodologies can be conceptualised according to a number of dimensions such as deception timing (prior to or during exercise), presentation frequency (blind, discontinuous or continuous) and type of deception (performance, biofeedback or environmental feedback). However, research evidence on the effects of deception has been perplexing and the use of complex designs and varied methodologies makes it difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about how pacing strategy and performance are affected by deception. This review examines existing research in the area of deception and pacing strategies, and provides a critical appraisal of the different methodological approaches used to date. It is hoped that this analysis will inform the direction and methodology of future investigations in this area by addressing the mechanisms through which deception impacts upon performance and by elucidating the potential application of deception techniques in training and competitive settings.