MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597679172

Biofeedback and physiological reactivity in high-performance athletes

2016· article· en· W2597679172 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Ceccarelli, Leisha Strachan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofeedbackAthletesHeart rateArousalPsychologyPsychophysiologyPhysical therapyCoping (psychology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationBlood pressureClinical psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pressure and stress are salient experiences for high-performance athletes. Consequently, many of these athletes struggle to manage the demands of sport. High-performance athletes must adapt to changing performance demands, pressure and heightened psychophysiological activity; failure to do so reduces performance. Failure for athletes to self-regulate their psychophysiological responses impairs concentration, attention, motor functioning and coordination, and increases distraction. Sustained sympathetic nervous system activation associated with arousal responses leads to deteriorating health outcomes including depression, illness and burnout. This further emphasizes the importance of athletes having effective coping and self-regulatory strategies to optimize recovery in sport. Researchers who study biofeedback (BF) training assert that it is an effective method for athletes to achieve superior performance under pressure and optimal recovery. In this study, I explored the effects of BF training on psychophysiological recovery (skin conductance and respiration rate) and reaction time in university-level athletes (N = nine). Participants were randomized into experimental and control conditions and underwent a baseline assessment, a training phase and follow-up assessment. Experimental participants received five sessions of BF respiration training and the control participants underwent five sessions of guided breathing training, without the use of BF equipment. Using nonparametric analyses, no significant differences were found in the variables of interest between the groups. However, interesting trends were observed for changes in the skin conductance response and respiration rate. Implications for athletes' performance, coping and recovery and limitations to this study will be discussed. Keywords: biofeedback, athletes, psychophysiological arousal, self-regulation, recoveryAcknowledgments: Dr. Adrienne Leslie-Toogood, Dr. Melanie Gregg, Dr. Lorna Jakobson

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository)Same topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207