MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613153454

Bio/neurofeedback: An effective tool for athlete psychological preparation leading up to and during the 2010 Winter Olympic Games

2010· article· en· W2613153454 on OpenAlexaff
Penny Werthner, Margaret Dupee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurofeedbackAthletesAnxietyAlertnessBiofeedbackRelaxation (psychology)PsychologyModalitiesHeart rate variabilityArousalHeart ratePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMuscle tensionPhysical therapyMedicineElectroencephalographyNeuroscience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bio/neurofeedback training targets the development of an athlete's psychological skills, such as focus, management of anxiety, and recovery/relaxation ability in order to enhance overall performance. Focus training provides tools for the athlete to help them develop alertness and concentration and manage emotions, fears and distractions. Anxiety management training equips the athlete with skills to shift into a parasympathetic dominant state at will and regulate, or turn off, the stress response. Training to engage the body in deep relaxation serves to release stress from the nervous system. In the present study, funded byOwn The Podium (OTP), 16 athletes were trained for 30-45 hours, using bio/neurofeedback instrumentation to learn to control physiological and neurological function. Sensors were attached to the body for the purpose of acquiring biological and neurological signals such as those produced by muscles, sweat glands, body temperature, respiration, and heart rhythm (i.e. biofeedback modalities) and brainwaves (i.e. neurofeedback modality). Each of the 16 athletes who participated in the three year study improved their overall ability to self-regulate. Most improvement was in self-regulation of respiration rate, muscle tension and peripheral body temperature. The electrodermal response (arousal regulation) and heart rate variability ranges did not reach the required criteria consistently, indicating that work would need to be continued on those modalities.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207