MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897328724 · doi:10.7717/peerj.6164

High tempo music prolongs high intensity exercise

2019· article· en· W2897328724 on OpenAlexaff
Meaghan Maddigan, Kathleen M. Sullivan, Israel Halperin, Fabien A. Basset, David G. Behm

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRating of perceived exertionIntensity (physics)Heart rateVentilatory thresholdExercise intensityPhysical therapyCardiologyPerceived exertionBlood lactateMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyInternal medicineVO2 maxBlood pressurePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Music has been shown to reduce rating of perceived exertion, increase exercise enjoyment and enhance exercise performance, mainly in low-moderate intensity exercises. However, the effects of music are less conclusive with high-intensity activities. The purpose of this with-participant design study was to compare the effects of high tempo music (130 bpm) to a no-music condition during repeated high intensity cycling bouts (80% of peak power output (PPO)) on the following measures: time to exercise end-point, rating of perceived exertion (RPE), heart rate (HR), breathing frequency, ventilatory kinetics and blood lactate (BL). Under the music condition, participants exercised 10.7% longer ( p = 0.035; Effect size (ES) = 0.28) (increase of 1 min) and had higher HR (4%; p = 0.043; ES = 0.25), breathing frequency (11.6%; p < 0.001; ES = 0.57), and RER (7% at TTF; p = 0.021; ES = 1.1) during exercise, as measured at the exercise end-point. Trivial differences were observed between conditions in RPE and other ventilatory kinetics during exercise. Interestingly, 5 min post-exercise termination, HR recovery was 13.0% faster following the music condition ( p < 0.05) despite that music was not played during this period. These results strengthen the notion that music can alter the association between central motor drive, central cardiovascular command and perceived exertion, and contribute to prolonged exercise durations at higher intensities along with a quicken HR recovery.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations52
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207