↓ Skip to main content

A Monetary Reward Alters Pacing but Not Performance in Competitive Cyclists

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
33 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
A Monetary Reward Alters Pacing but Not Performance in Competitive Cyclists
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00741
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabrina Skorski, Kevin G. Thompson, Richard J. Keegan, Tim Meyer, Chris R. Abbiss

Abstract

Money has frequently been used as an extrinsic motivator since it is assumed that humans are willing to invest more effort for financial reward. However, the influence of a monetary reward on pacing and performance in trained athletes is not well-understood. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the influence of a monetary reward in well-trained cyclists on their pacing and performance during short and long cycling time trials (TT). Twentythree cyclists (6 ♀, 17 ♂) completed 4 self-paced time trials (TTs, 2 short: 4 km and 6 min; 2 long: 20 km and 30 min); in a randomized order. Participants were separated into parallel, non-randomized "rewarded" and "non-rewarded" groups. Cyclists in the rewarded group received a monetary reward based on highest mean power output across all TTs. Cyclists in the non-rewarded group did not receive a monetary reward. Overall performance was not significantly different between groups in short or long TTs (p > 0.48). Power output showed moderatly lower effect sizes at comencement of the short TTs (Pmeandiff = 36.6 W; d > 0.44) and the 20 km TT (Pmeandiff = 22.6 W; d = 0.44) in the rewarded group. No difference was observed in pacing during the 30 min TT (p = 0.95). An external reward seems to have influenced pacing at the commencement of time trials. Participants in the non-rewarded group adopted a typical parabolic shaped pattern, whereas participants in the rewarded group started trials more conservatively. Results raise the possibility that using money as an extrinsic reward may interfere with regulatory processes required for effective pacing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 6 20%
Psychology 6 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Mathematics 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,296,795
of 24,820,264 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#715
of 15,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,330
of 326,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#21
of 315 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,820,264 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. 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 326,400 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 315 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 93% of its contemporaries.