Perceptually regulated training does not influence the differentiated RPE response following 16-weeks of aerobic exercise in adults with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of prolonged familiarisation with ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) on the peripheral (RPEP) and central (RPEC) RPE responses to moderate–vigorous exercise in adults with spinal cord injury (SCI). RPEP and RPEC characterise the exertion of the working musculature and cardiorespiratory systems, respectively. Nineteen participants (age, 41.4 ± 11.4 years; peak oxygen uptake, 19.2 ± 7.2 mL·kg−1·min−1) with chronic SCI were randomly assigned to RPE-guided (n = 11; EXP) or active control (n = 8; CON) groups. EXP performed 16-weeks of RPE-guided, supervised aerobic training for 20 min, twice weekly, at RPE 3–6 (Category-Ratio 10 scale). CON had access to the same exercise equipment but received no specific advice on their exercise-training regime. Participants completed a graded exercise test, using an arm crank ergometer at pre- and post-training to determine peak oxygen uptake, with RPEP and RPEC recorded every minute throughout tests. Sixteen weeks training did not improve peak oxygen uptake. RPE decreased post-training at 50% (p = 0.02) and 70% peak oxygen uptake (p = 0.03), though there was no effect of group at either intensity (p = 0.54, 0.42, respectively). At 70% peak oxygen uptake, RPEP was greater than RPEC (4.2 ± 1.7 vs 3.4 ± 1.8, p < 0.005). Training with RPE-guidance for 16 weeks had no additional effect on the differentiated RPE responses to moderate-vigorous exercise in adults with SCI. Novelty In adults with SCI, differentiated RPE responses were not different between those who did, and did not, perform 16 weeks of RPE-guided training. This challenges whether familiarisation with RPE is necessary to be an effective regulator of exercise intensity in this population.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".