ArticlePloS one2019
No evidence of the effect of cognitive load on self-paced cycling performance.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Rating of perceived exertion in continuous sports: a scoping review with evidence gap map.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating Changes in Mental Workload in Indoor and Outdoor Ultra-Distance Cycling.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Less Is More-Cyclists-Triathlete's 30 min Cycling Time-Trial Performance Is Impaired With Multiple Feedback Compared to a Single Feedback.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Correction: No evidence of the effect of cognitive load on self-paced cycling performance.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo test the hypothesis that cognitive load (low vs. high load) during a 20 min self-paced cycling exercise affects physical performance.
designA pre-registered (https://osf.io/qept5/), randomized, within-subject design experiment.
methods28 trained and experienced male cyclists completed a 20 min self-paced cycling time-trial exercise in two separate sessions, corresponding to two working memory load conditions: 1-back or 2-back. We measured power output, heart rate, RPE and mental fatigue.
resultsBayes analyses revealed extreme evidence for the 2-back task being more demanding than the 1-back task, both in terms of accuracy (BF10 = 4490) and reaction time (BF = 1316). The data only showed anecdotal evidence for the alternative hypothesis for the power output (BF10 = 1.52), moderate evidence for the null hypothesis for the heart rate (BF10 = 0.172), anecdotal evidence for RPE (BF10 = 0.72) and anecdotal evidence for mental fatigue (BF10 = 0.588).
conclusionsOur data seem to challenge the idea that self-paced exercise is regulated by top-down processing, given that we did not show clear evidence of exercise impairment (at the physical, physiological and subjective levels) in the high cognitive load condition task with respect to the low working memory load condition. The involvement of top-down processing in self-pacing the physical effort, however, cannot be totally discarded. Factors like the duration of the physical and cognitive tasks, the potential influence of dual-tasking, and the participants' level of expertise, should be taken into account in future attempts to investigate the role of top-down processing in self-paced exercise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.