Wheelchair propulsion: effects of experience and push strategy on efficiency and perceived exertion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the role of wheeling experience on efficiency, metabolic cost, and differentiated ratings of perceived exertion (RPEs) during synchronous and asynchronous hand-rim propulsion with varying arm frequencies. Fourteen able-bodied (AB) male participants and 8 male wheelchair sportsmen (WS) performed tests of peak oxygen consumption for both propulsion modes. Subsequently, 2 series of five 4-min sub-maximal exercise bouts were completed at an individualized velocity (60% of peak oxygen consumption). Arm frequencies consisted of the freely chosen frequency (FCF), followed by 4 counter-balanced paced trials pushing at 60%, 80%, 120%, and 140% of the FCF. Efficiency indices (gross, GE; work, WE) were determined and peripheral (RPE-P), central (RPE-C), and overall (RPE-O) RPEs were recorded. The GE (6.4% vs. 8.4%) and WE (11.3% vs. 15.1%) were significantly higher in WS than in AB (p = 0.001). Trends in the oxygen consumption, GE, and WE data were similar in both groups, propulsion mode, and arm frequency. Data suggest that 80% FCF resulted in improved efficiency for both propulsion mode and group, although the differences between those arm frequencies immediately above and below were non-significant. Lower RPE scores corresponded with higher efficiency values. Regardless of group there were significant differences (p = 0.001) between the differentiated RPE measures, whereby RPE-P was on average always the highest score (13.1) and RPE-C the lowest (11.1; RPE-O was 12.2). In conclusion, despite the anticipated differences in efficiency between the WS and AB participants, this study confirmed that psycho-physiological measures produce similar trends to physiological measures with manipulations of both arm frequency and propulsion mode.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".