ArticleSports medicine - open2026
Modifying the Meaning of the Upper Anchor Predictably Shapes Ratings of Perceived Effort: A Randomized Crossover Trial.
Article in Sports medicine - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRatings of perceived effort (RPE) are used to prescribe and monitor training. Yet, the influence of how the upper anchor ("10") is defined remains underexplored, despite holding theoretical and practical value. Here, we examined whether modifying the upper anchor predictably modifies RPEs during isometric exercises.
methodsWe conducted a within-subject, randomized crossover study in 26 resistance-trained adults. Participants performed isometric contractions at 20-100% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in three exercises: unilateral plantar flexion, unilateral knee extension, and the isometric mid-thigh pull. After each contraction, participants reported RPE (0-10) relative to one session-specific anchor: same-task (maximal effort in the task performed), different-task (maximal effort in the isometric mid-thigh pull), or self-selected (the most effortful task ever experienced or imagined). We estimated expected RPEs and slopes relating RPE to %MVC for each exercise-anchor combination. Preregistered comparisons assessed anchor effects, muscle-mass dose-response, and approximate scale invariance across anchors.
resultsAnchor type substantially influenced RPE. Same-task anchors consistently produced the highest RPEs, self-selected the lowest, and different-task anchors intermediate values, with effects most pronounced at 80-100% MVC. The ratings increased with %MVC across all conditions. Under the self-selected anchors, exercises engaging greater muscle mass tended to yield higher RPEs. The relative differences between exercises were largely preserved across anchors, indicating that anchor choice alters RPE while maintaining approximate scale invariance.
conclusionsUpper anchors predictably shape RPE across tasks and intensities. Researchers and applied practitioners using RPE in resistance training should explicitly define, justify, and consistently report anchoring procedures, and align anchor choice with the intended purpose to support valid interpretation and comparisons.
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.