PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note: To accommodate reviewer and recommender holiday schedules, we will be closed to submissions from 1st July — 1st September. During this time, reviewers will be able to submit reviews and recommenders will issue decisions, but no new or revised submissions can be made by authors. The one exception to this rule is that authors using the scheduled track who submit their initial Stage 1 snapshot prior to 1st July can choose a date within the shutdown period to submit their full Stage 1 manuscript.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

771

Title

Do prediction errors of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors

Damien Brevers, Guillaume Martinent, İrem Tuğçe Öz, Olivier Desmedt, Bas de GeusPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year

2024

Picture

Abstract

<p>Humans have the ability to mentally project themselves into future events (prospective thinking) to promote the implementation of health-oriented behaviors, such as the planning of daily physical exercise sessions. Nevertheless, it is currently unclear whether and how prospective thinking can assist individuals in generating future predictions about their own bodily states, such as when anticipating the level of perceived exertion to be experienced in a forthcoming physical exercise session, and whether these predictions influence the subjective experience of pleasure in a session. Here, based on the literature on reward prediction errors, we argue that running sessions that are experienced with a lower intensity of ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) than expected are associated with a higher level of pleasure, and vice versa. To test this hypothesis, we created a novel marker, the RPE-based prediction error, by comparing RPE before (prospective RPE) and after (retrospective RPE) each running session among participants in a start-to-run program (N = 66). Retrospective ratings of running pleasure was assessed by the participant after each running session of the program. Using this approach, linear mixed models showed that a positive RPE-based prediction error (lower score of retrospective RPE than prospective RPE) is associated with a higher level of retrospective pleasure. This study thus demonstrates that the use of prospective and retrospective RPE is beneficial for predicting the experience of running pleasure. We further discuss how future studies should help to better understand the impact of RPE-based prediction error on exercise pleasure and whether this new marker may be used to ultimately impact humans’ commitment to physical exercise.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org).

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords

physical exercise, prospective thinking, rating of perceived exertion, pleasure, prediction error.

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]

Submission date

2024-04-26 11:58:57

Recommender

Zoltan Dienes

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY