Submit a report

771

Do prediction errors of perceived exertion inform the level of running pleasure? use asterix (*) to get italics
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"
2024
<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>
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://
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://
You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://
physical exercise, prospective thinking, rating of perceived exertion, pleasure, prediction error.
NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).
Social sciences
No need for them to be recommenders of PCI RR (TEST). 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
e.g. John Doe [john@doe.com]
2024-04-26 11:58:57
Zoltan Dienes