Trial reportMedical & biological engineering & computing2017
Heart rate regulation during cycle-ergometer exercise via event-driven biofeedback.
Trial report in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heart Rate Variability Control Using a Biofeedback and Wearable System.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Robust control of heart rate for cycle ergometer exercise.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2019Article
- Identification and comparison of heart-rate dynamics during cycle ergometer and treadmill exercise.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper is devoted to the problem of regulating the heart rate response along a predetermined reference profile, for cycle-ergometer exercises designed for training or cardio-respiratory rehabilitation. The controller designed in this study is a non-conventional, non-model-based, proportional, integral and derivative (PID) controller. The PID controller commands can be transmitted as biofeedback auditory commands, which can be heard and interpreted by the exercising subject to increase or reduce exercise intensity. However, in such a case, for the purposes of effectively communicating to the exercising subject a change in the required exercise intensity, the timing of this feedback signal relative to the position of the pedals becomes critical. A feedback signal delivered when the pedals are not in a suitable position to efficiently exert force may be ineffective and this may, in turn, lead to the cognitive disengagement of the user from the feedback controller. This note examines a novel form of control system which has been expressly designed for this project. The system is called an "actuator-based event-driven control system". The proposed control system was experimentally verified using 24 healthy male subjects who were randomly divided into two separate groups, along with cross-validation scheme. A statistical analysis was employed to test the generalisation of the PID tunes, derived based on the average transfer functions of the two groups, and it revealed that there were no significant differences between the mean values of root mean square of the tracking error of two groups (3.9 vs. 3.7 bpm, [Formula: see text]). Furthermore, the results of a second statistical hypothesis test showed that the proposed PID controller with novel synchronised biofeedback mechanism has better performance compared to a conventional PID controller with a fixed-rate biofeedback mechanism (Group 1: 3.9 vs. 5.0 bpm, Group 2: 3.7 vs. 4.4 bpm, [Formula: see text]).
Indexed as
Identifiers
27260247What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.