↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
50 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cycling in the Absence of Task-Related Feedback: Effects on Pacing and Performance
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00348
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin L. M. Smits, Remco C. J. Polman, Bert Otten, Gert-Jan Pepping, Florentina J. Hettinga

Abstract

To achieve personal goals in exercise task completion, exercisers have to regulate, distribute, and manage their effort. In endurance sports, it has become very commonplace for athletes to consult task-related feedback on external devices to do so. The aim of the present study was to explore the importance of the presence of this information by examining the influence of the absence of commonly available task-related feedback on effort distribution and performance in experienced endurance athletes. A 20-km cycling time trial was performed. Twenty Participants from a homogenous cyclist population were appointed to a group that did not receive any feedback (NoF), or a group that could consult task-related feedback (i.e., speed, heart rate, power output, cadence, elapsed time, and elapsed distance) continuously during their trial (FF). The distribution of power output (PO) differed between groups. Most evident is the spurt at the end of the trial of FF, which was not incorporated by NoF. Nevertheless, no between-group differences were found in performance time (FF: 28.86 ± 3.68 vs. NoF: 30.95 ± 2.77 min) and mean PO controlled by body mass (FF: 3.61 ± 0.60 vs. NoF: 3.43 ± 0.38 W/kg). Also, no differences in rating of perceived exertion scores were found. The current study provides a first indication that prior knowledge of task demands together with reliance on bodily and environmental information can be sufficient for experienced athletes to come to comparable time trial performances. This questions the necessity of the presence of in-race instantaneous task-related feedback via external devices for maximizing performance. Moreover, it seems that different pacing strategies emerge depending on sources of information available to experienced athletes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 50 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Professor 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 12 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 20 38%
Psychology 6 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 8%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,162,477
of 25,253,876 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#642
of 15,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,883
of 367,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#9
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,253,876 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.