Effects of Reflection to Improve Goal-Directed Self-Talk on Endurance Performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effects of an intervention that encouraged reflection on organic self-talk used during endurance performance. Using an experimental design, we compared the effects of enhancing metacognitive skills by (a) planning and (b) reviewing and evaluating goal-directed self-talk. Participants completed three time-to-exhaustion cycling task trials in which we hypothesized that the intervention group would perform significantly better than the control group. Further, we expected a reduction in perceived exertion for a given workload among participants following a self-talk intervention. Thirty-four participants completed a time-to-exhaustion cycle ergometer test, after which participants were randomly divided into an intervention and control group. The intervention group performed reflection tasks on performance in the time-to-exhaustion test. Participants completed two further time-to-exhaustion tests. Repeated measures analyses of covariance to test whether the intervention group performed for longer indicated no significant difference in time to exhaustion (p = 0.157). Perceived exertion rates were 2.42% higher in the intervention compared to the control group (p = 0.025). In conclusion, in the intervention group, goal-directed self-talk led to increased sensitisation to perceived exertion, and participants chose to stop exercising at this point rather than repeat implementation of self-talk statements and persist for longer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it