ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020
Effect of Height on Perceived Exertion and Physiological Responses for Climbers of Differing Ability Levels.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Impact of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation-Based Fingerboard Training versus Conventional Fingerboard Training on Finger Flexor Endurance in Intermediate to Advanced Sports Climbers: A Randomized Controlled Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Trial
- Sport climbing competence is influenced by training frequency, experience, self-efficacy, flow, and emotional intelligence.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Evaluating acute stress responses to height: validity of heart rate variability, respiratory markers, and competitive state anxiety inventory.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Acute Physiological Responses to Rope Climbing Ergometer High-Intensity Interval Training in Males and Females.International journal of exercise science · 2025Article
- The Effects of Prioritizing Lead or Boulder Climbing Among Intermediate Climbers.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2021Article
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
purposeThe purpose of this study was to examine differences in perceived exertion (RPE) and physiological responses for climbers of different abilities completing an identical route low and high above the ground. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-two male (
resultsThe mean (±standard deviation) RPE was higher for lower-grade climbers when ascending the route on the wall (RPE = 12 ± 1) when compared to the treadwall route (RPE = 11 ± 1,
conclusionClimbing to height induced a greater metabolic stress than climbing at a low height (treadwall) and led to higher RPE for lower-grade climbers. In this study, RPE appeared to be a good proxy measure of the physiological demands for advanced climbers but not for intermediate and lower-grade climbers. Therefore, using RPE in climbing with less experienced athletes may perhaps overestimate actual exercise intensity and should be interpreted carefully.
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.