Call Girls Chennai Megha 9907093804 Independent Call Girls Service Chennai
Effort Perception in Exercise Science
1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303672955
Perception of effort in Exercise Science: Definition, measurement and
perspectives
Article in European Journal of Sport Science · May 2016
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2016.1188992
CITATIONS
221
READS
7,461
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Understanding effort in task performance View project
Tailoring exercise with muscular contraction View project
Benjamin Pageaux
Université de Montréal
68 PUBLICATIONS 1,551 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Benjamin Pageaux on 09 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
2. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tejs20
Download by: [European College of Sport Science] Date: 30 May 2016, At: 07:45
European Journal of Sport Science
ISSN: 1746-1391 (Print) 1536-7290 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20
Perception of effort in Exercise Science: Definition,
measurement and perspectives
Benjamin Pageaux
To cite this article: Benjamin Pageaux (2016): Perception of effort in Exercise Science:
Definition, measurement and perspectives, European Journal of Sport Science, DOI:
10.1080/17461391.2016.1188992
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2016.1188992
Published online: 30 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
4. monitor internal training load (e.g. Impellizzeri et al.,
2004). With regard to endurance performance, per-
ception of effort has been suggested to limit endur-
ance performance (Marcora & Staiano, 2010).
Finally, perception of effort is exacerbated in the
presence of physical fatigue (e.g. de Morree, Klein,
& Marcora, 2012) or mental fatigue (e.g. Pageaux,
Marcora, Rozand, & Lepers, 2015) and pathologies
such as stroke (Kuppuswamy, Clark, Turner,
Rothwell, & Ward, 2015) or chronic kidney disease
(Macdonald, Fearn, Jibani, & Marcora, 2012). Con-
sequently, for the aforementioned reasons, there is a
growing interest for researchers to understand the
underlying mechanisms generating perception of
effort.
Despite this growing interest towards perception of
effort, only few articles (e.g. Abbiss, Peiffer,
Meeusen, & Skorski, 2015; Marcora, 2009; Smir-
maul, 2012) or book chapters (e.g. Marcora, 2010;
de Morree & Marcora, 2015; Noble & Robertson,
1996) have aimed to define and provide guidelines
to ensure appropriate measurement of this percep-
tion. More importantly, perception of effort is often
discussed and not defined (e.g. Bergstrom et al.,
2015), or other feelings unrelated to effort are
included into its definition and the instructions pro-
vided to the subjects (e.g. Amann et al., 2010).
Therefore, the main aim of this review is to provide
an overview of what is perception of effort in Exercise
Science. Firstly, the need to dissociate effort from
other exercise-related sensations will be reinforced.
Secondly, a definition and some brief guidelines for
its measurement will be provided. Finally, an over-
view of the models present in the literature aiming
to explain its neurophysiology will be presented,
and some perspectives for future research will be
offered.
Contrary to a recent review, the present manu-
script does not attempt to dissociate the words
“effort” and “exertion” (for more details, please see
the review of Abbiss et al., 2015), and uses inter-
changeably both words as synonymous to describe
the same construct. This approach finds experimen-
tal support in a recently published study demonstrat-
ing the inability of trained cyclists to dissociate
perception of “effort” and “exertion” during cycling
time trials (Jones et al., 2015), providing per se exper-
imental evidence that no difference in semantic exists
between “effort” and “exertion”. Furthermore, as the
authors of the experimental studies discussed in the
present review used interchangeably the words
“effort” and “exertion” as synonymous to describe
the same construct, and/or did not dissociate the
words “effort” and “exertion”; the distinction
between “effort” and “exertion” cannot be made
when presenting their results.
Perception of effort and other sensations
related to physical exercise
There is a common assumption in Exercise Science
literature that perception of force, pain and/or dis-
comfort experienced during the exercise contribute
to the perception of effort (e.g. Noble & Robertson,
1996). However, it has been shown by numerous
studies that humans are able to dissociate effort
from other exercise-related sensations. This part
will briefly present studies demonstrating the ability
of humans to differentiate between perceptions of
force, pain and discomfort.
Force versus effort. Studies on kinaesthesia often
investigated perception of force and effort through
single limb exercises (for review please see Taylor,
2013). Perception of force and perception of effort
are two perceptions closely linked to another.
Indeed, in neurophysiology, effort is commonly
related to the conscious perception of the central
motor command (i.e. activity of premotor and
motor areas of the brain related to voluntary muscle
contractions; de Morree et al., 2012) sent to the
working muscles, whereas perception of force corre-
sponds to the perception resulting from the neuronal
process of (i) the efferent copy (i.e. corollary dis-
charge) of the central motor command and (ii) the
afferent feedback from the working muscles (for
review please see Taylor, 2013). Therefore, it is poss-
ible for experienced subjects to differentiate between
perception of effort and perception of force (Jones,
1995; Jones & Hunter, 1983). To do so, clear instruc-
tions must be provided to the subjects. Whereas effort
refers to the difficulty of driving the limb involved in
the exercise (e.g. de Morree, Klein, & Marcora,
2014; de Morree et al., 2012), force refers to the sen-
sations of muscle tension experienced during muscle
contraction (Jones & Hunter, 1983). However, as the
dissociation between effort and force seems to be
possible only in absence of fatigue (Jones & Hunter,
1983), future studies should investigate the ability
of humans to dissociate these two perceptions in pres-
ence of fatigue.
Pain versus effort. The International Association for
the Study of Pain defines pain as “an unpleasant
sensory and emotional experience associated with
actual or potential tissue damage, or described in
terms of such damage”. Interestingly, the definition
of pain refers to an unpleasant sensation, and conse-
quently to ratings of hedonicity (i.e. pleasant vs.
unpleasant), thus requiring the use of another psy-
chophysical scale than the rating of perceived exer-
tion (RPE) scales. The neurophysiology of muscle
pain is well established and especially involves the
neuronal process of feedback from group III–IV
muscle afferents, which can be influenced by
2 B. Pageaux
Downloaded
by
[European
College
of
Sport
Science]
at
07:45
30
May
2016
5. psychological and sociological factors (O’Connor &
Cook, 1999). Exercise-induced pain has been exten-
sively studied in the literature and is still a hot topic in
endurance performance (Angius, Hopker, Marcora,
& Mauger, 2015; Mauger, 2013). Surprisingly, it
has been necessary to wait until 2001 to demonstrate
that humans are able to dissociate between percep-
tion of pain and perception of effort during physical
exercise (O’ Connor & Cook, 2001). In their study,
O’Connor & Cook provided a clear definition of leg
muscle pain (i.e. the degree of hurt you are feeling
in your quadriceps only) and instructions on how to
differentiate between muscle pain, effort and fatigue
perception. Furthermore, these authors used two
different psychophysical scales to investigate per-
ceived exertion and muscle pain. Consequently,
these authors demonstrated that subjects are able to
sustain moderate-intensity muscle pain for ∼15
min, while being able to rate separately their percep-
tion of effort. The ability of humans to dissociate
between perception of pain and effort was then
observed by others, either by asking the subjects to
rate their pain and effort separately during leg
cycling (e.g. Astokorki & Mauger, 2016), arm
cycling (e.g. Groslambert et al., 2006) and isolated
(e.g. Pageaux, Angius, Hopker, Lepers, & Marcora,
2015) exercise, or by exercising at a fixed effort
while reporting their perception of pain (e.g. Asto-
korki & Mauger, 2016). Therefore, as experimental
evidences have demonstrated the ability of humans
to differentiate between perception of effort and per-
ception of pain, it is clear that these two perceptions
result from two distinct phenomena. Consequently,
further studies aiming to understand the underlying
mechanisms of effort and pain, or how these percep-
tions regulate human’s behaviour should specifically
instruct the subject not to include the perception of
pain in the rating of effort, and vice-versa.
Discomfort versus effort. The Oxford Dictionary
defines discomfort as “slight pain or something that
causes one to feel uncomfortable”. As it is explicit
in this definition, perception of discomfort refers to
perception of pain. Consequently, if discomfort is
included in the definition of effort, any change in per-
ception of pain (i.e. sensation that can be rated inde-
pendently of effort) is likely to affect the perception of
effort rating provided by the subject. Therefore, if dis-
comfort is included in the effort definition, a con-
founding variable is added, leading to a
misinterpretation of the RPE data (e.g. Amann
et al., 2010). Recently, Christian, Bishop, Billaut,
and Girard (2014) emphasized the need and possi-
bility to dissociate between perception of effort and
discomfort. In this study, the authors asked the sub-
jects to cycle at various constant efforts and to rate
their discomfort while cycling in hypoxia and
normoxia. As shown by the different time course of
perceived discomfort between normoxia and
hypoxia at constant effort, humans are able to separ-
ate their perception of discomfort from their percep-
tion of effort.
The present paragraph has emphasized the need to
dissociate between effort and other sensations experi-
enced during physical exercise. Consequently, using
a definition that does not include other exercise-
related sensations could help researchers and clini-
cians to get a better insight into the underlying mech-
anisms generating perception of effort.
Definition of perception of effort
Originally, perceived exertion was defined by Gunnar
Borg as “the feeling of how heavy, strenuous and
laborious exercise is” (Borg, 1962). In the description
provided by the author, perception of effort is pre-
sented as “the sensation from the organs of circula-
tion and respiration, from the muscles, the skin, the
joints and force” (Borg, 1962). Later, linked to the
description of the original definition previously men-
tioned, the notion of discomfort and/or fatigue was
added in the definition of perceived exertion as
follow: “the subjective intensity of effort, strain, dis-
comfort, and/or fatigue that is experienced during
physical exercise” (Noble & Robertson, 1996).
Despite fatigue and discomfort not being present in
the original definition of Gunnar Borg, the definition
provided by Noble and Robertson has been well
accepted in the field of Exercise Science and empha-
sized by the American College of Sports Medicine in
a well-written comment (Utter, Kang, & Roberston,
2007). However, as previously explained, when dis-
comfort is included in the definition of perceived
exertion, any change in a sensation other than effort
(e.g. pain) can lead the subjects to inaccurately rate
their perception of effort. Consequently, special
attention should be paid to the definition and instruc-
tions provided to the subjects in order to accurately
investigate perception of effort.
As (i) the definition mentioned above includes
rating of sensations other than effort and (ii) it is
well accepted that humans can differentiate percep-
tion of effort from other exercise-related sensations,
a definition that is closest to the original definition
of Borg should be used. In 2010, in the Encyclopae-
dia of Perception, Marcora proposed to define per-
ception of effort as “the conscious sensation of how
hard, heavy, and strenuous a physical task is”
(Marcora, 2010). This definition: (i) is in line with
the definition of “exertion” provided by the Oxford
Dictionary of Sport Science and Medicine (“the
effort expended in performing a physical activity”)
Perception of effort in Exercise Science 3
Downloaded
by
[European
College
of
Sport
Science]
at
07:45
30
May
2016
6. and the original definition of Borg, (ii) is in line with
the descriptors chosen by Borg in his psychophysical
scales (Marcora, 2009) and (iii) has been shown to be
sensitive to psychological (Blanchfield, Hardy, &
Marcora, 2014; Blanchfield, Hardy, de Morree,
Staiano, & Marcora, 2013; Pageaux, Lepers, Dietz,
& Marcora, 2014; Pageaux, Marcora, & Lepers,
2013; Pageaux, Marcora, et al., 2015) and physio-
logical (de Morree & Marcora, 2013; de Morree
et al., 2012, 2014) manipulations of perceived exer-
tion. Therefore, to avoid the addition of confounding
factors in the definition of effort (e.g. inclusion of dis-
comfort), future studies aiming to investigate the
neurophysiology of perceived exertion and/or the
role of perception of effort in the regulation of
human behaviour should refer to this definition.
Additionally, it has to be noted that this definition
could be easily transposed to studies aiming to inves-
tigate perception of effort during cognitive tasks, by
simply replacing “physical task” by “mental task”,
although this needs to be investigated by further
methodological studies.
Measurement of perception of effort
The neurophysiology of perceived exertion was and is
still investigated via controlateral force-matching
tasks (e.g. McCloskey, Ebeling, & Goodwin, 1974;
Scotland, Adamo, & Martin, 2014). This approach
significantly improved the knowledge on the under-
lying mechanisms generating perception of effort,
but presents some important limitations. Firstly, con-
trary to the force output, the rating of effort is not the
dependant variable as results are discussed according
to the force produced by the subjects. Secondly, as
previously presented, humans are able to dissociate
between perception of effort and perception of
force. Consequently, it seems crucial to dissociate
these two perceptions.
Perception of effort can also be investigated via the
use of psychophysical scales (Borg, 1998 ; see Figure
1 for examples). The psychophysical scales com-
monly used to monitor perception of effort are: (i)
the RPE scale, (ii) the category ratio scale (CR) 10
and (iii) the CR100 scale. The RPE scale is a 15-
point scale (from 6 to 20) originally constructed for
steady-state aerobic exercise as rating increases line-
arly with heart rate and oxygen consumption. This
scale is of particular interest to monitor exercise
intensity as it correlates with objective measurements
of exercise intensity (Borg, 1998). The Borg CR10
scale is a 10-point scale (from 0 to 10, with the possi-
bility to rate effort above 10 if necessary) developed to
monitor direct estimation of intensity levels to
perform between-subject comparisons (Borg, 1998).
However, despite the scale being continuous and par-
ticipants being encouraged to use decimals, the CR10
scale does not offer sufficient rating possibilities to
detect small changes in effort perception. Conse-
quently, a more fine-graded scale, the CR100 scale,
was developed to increase the possibility to detect
small changes in effort perception (Borg, 2007).
All three psychophysical scales mentioned above
have been shown to be valid and reliable for whole-
body and isolated exercise as far as standardized pro-
cedures are followed during instruction and adminis-
tration (Borg, 1998). Special attention should be paid
to the instructions provided to the subjects:
(1) Written instructions including the definition of
effort should be provided to the subjects before
each testing session and the subject should
have the opportunity to ask questions.
(2) As effort differs from pain and other exercise-
related sensations, it has to be specified that
subjects must not include a rating of other sen-
sations (e.g. discomfort) in their rating of
effort.
(3) As the effort experienced during whole-body
and isolated exercise differs (e.g. lower cardior-
espiratory responses to isolated exercise com-
pared to whole-body exercise), exercise-
specific descriptions on how to rate perception
of effort should be provided. The description
“How hard is it for you to drive your leg or
arm?” for isolated exercise and “How hard is
it for you to drive your legs and arms and
how heavy is your breathing?” for whole-body
exercise have been shown to be sensitive to
physiological (e.g. de Morree & Marcora,
2013; de Morree et al., 2012) and psychologi-
cal (e.g. Pageaux et al., 2013; Pageaux,
Marcora, et al., 2015) manipulations of per-
ception of effort. The descriptions aforemen-
tioned are complementary to the written
instructions provided to the subjects.
(4) Subjects should be asked to first read the verbal
expressions of the scale, and then to report the
corresponding number according to their per-
ception of effort. If necessary, subjects could
report values with decimals.
(5) To provide points of reference on how to rate
perception of effort, memory-anchoring or
exercise-anchoring should be performed.
Memory-anchoring is based on subjects’
memory (e.g. “maximal exertion corresponds
to the highest effort you have ever experi-
enced”) and exercise-anchoring is based on
an exercise performed (e.g. “maximal exertion
corresponds to the effort you experienced
while you were performing a maximal
4 B. Pageaux
Downloaded
by
[European
College
of
Sport
Science]
at
07:45
30
May
2016
7. voluntary contraction” for isolated exercise;
“maximal exertion corresponds to the effort
you experienced at exhaustion of the incre-
mental test” for whole-body exercise).
(6) If the feeling of effort experienced during the
exercise is above the feeling associated to the
anchoring performed for “maximal exertion”,
the subject should be allowed to rate a value
above “maximal exertion” to avoid a ceiling
effect.
(7) As perception of effort is related to the feeling
experienced during exercise, perception of
effort should be rated during the exercise. If
impossible, the subjects can be asked to
report their perception of effort after com-
pletion of the exercise, and it must be
explained to the subjects that their RPE
should refer to the feeling experienced during
the exercise and not post exercise (at rest).
This could be done as close as possible to the
end of the exercise if it is related to the most
recent exercise (e.g. de Morree et al., 2014),
or after 30 min rest when effort is asked to
monitor training load (to ensure that effort
rating refers to the whole training session; for
example, Impellizzeri et al., 2004).
(8) As recently reminded (Eston, Coquart, Lamb,
& Parfitt, 2015), completion of a familiariz-
ation session is compulsory to ensure validity
of data collection. A familiarization session
avoid any under or overestimation of the per-
ceived exertion, and also ensure that subjects
are able to dissociate effort from other exer-
cise-related sensations.
Neurophysiology of perception of effort
Despite the well-recognized importance of percep-
tion of effort in the regulation of human behaviour,
its neurophysiology has been scarcely investigated
and is still well debated. It is well accepted that per-
ception of effort results from the neuronal process
of sensory signals, and that this neuronal process
can be influenced by many psychological and socio-
logical factors (Noble & Robertson, 1996). This
neuronal process likely involves cortical areas
upstream of the primary motor cortex, such as the
pre supplementary motor area, the supplementary
motor area and also the anterior cingulate cortex
(de Morree et al., 2012, 2014; Williamson et al.,
2001, 2002; Zenon, Sidibe, & Olivier, 2015).
However, the nature of the sensory signals involved
in perception of effort generation remains debated.
So far, three different theories suggest that perception
of effort reflects the neuronal process of: (i) afferent
feedback from the working muscles (including the
respiratory muscles) and other interoceptors (e.g.
Noble & Robertson, 1996; afferent feedback model,
Figure 2(a)); (ii) the corollary discharge associated
with the central motor command (e.g. Marcora,
Figure 1. Examples of psychophysical scales used to monitor perception of effort. Panel a is the Borg rating of perceived exertion (RPE)
scale®
. Panel b is a modified version of the category ratio (CR)10 scale and panel c is the CR100 scale®
(Borg, 1998; Borg, 2007; de
Morree & Marcora, 2015).
Perception of effort in Exercise Science 5
Downloaded
by
[European
College
of
Sport
Science]
at
07:45
30
May
2016
8. 2009; corollary discharge model, Figure 2(b)) or (iii)
both afferent feedback and the corollary discharge
associated with the central motor command (e.g.
Amann et al., 2010; combined model, Figure 2(c)).
Afferent feedback model. Since the growing interest
of physiologists in the “muscle sense” (for review
please see Proske & Gandevia, 2012), a continual
debate exists between peripheralists (supporting the
afferent feedback model) and centralists (supporting
the corollary discharge model). Peripheralists base
their arguments on correlative data between increases
in perception of effort and increases in blood lactate
concentration and metabolites concentration in the
muscle milieu (Noble & Robertson, 1996). Indeed,
it might be plausible that feedback from group III
and IV muscle afferents (free nerve endings activated
by contraction-induced mechanical and chemical
stimuli) constitutes the sensory signal involved in per-
ception of effort generation. This hypothesis finds
anatomical support as group III–IV muscle afferents
are known to have central projections to various
spinal and supraspinal sites including the sensory
cortex (Craig, 2002). Two experimental studies also
suggest a plausible role of afferent feedback in per-
ception of effort generation (Amann et al., 2010;
Gagnon et al., 2012). However, as previously
explained, no conclusion can be drawn when sen-
sations other than effort are included in the definition
of effort (e.g. discomfort), and when the authors
include discomfort and/or fatigue in the definition
provided to the subjects. Furthermore, as injection
of physiological concentrations of metabolite combi-
nations into skeletal muscle (i.e. known to induce
stimulation of group III–IV muscle afferents; Pollak
et al., 2014) does not generate perception of effort
at rest (i.e. in absence of central motor command),
this model seems not plausible.
Corollary discharge model. The corollary discharge
model postulates that the sensory signal processed
by the brain to generate perception of effort is not
the afferent feedback from the working muscles and
other interoceptors (for review please see Marcora,
2009). This model proposes that perception of
effort is generated by neuronal process of the corol-
lary discharge (i.e. internal signal that arise from cen-
trifugal motor commands and that influence
perception; McCloskey, 1981/2011) associated with
the central motor command (i.e. activity of premotor
and motor areas of the brain related to voluntary
muscle contractions; de Morree et al., 2012).
Figure 2. Afferent feedback (panel a), corollary discharge (panel b) and combined (panel c) models aiming to explain the generation of per-
ceived exertion. The grey line represents the afferent feedback and the dotted line the corollary discharge associated with the central motor
command.
6 B. Pageaux
Downloaded
by
[European
College
of
Sport
Science]
at
07:45
30
May
2016
9. Corollary discharges might be used as the only stimu-
lus to generate some specific sensation (McCloskey,
1981/2011). Numerous experimental evidence in
favour of the corollary discharge model is presented
in Marcora (2009) and four experimental results in
favour of the corollary discharge model should be
emphasized. Firstly, when muscle fatigue is induced
in absence of exercise-induced metabolites in the
muscle milieu (i.e. known to stimulate group III–IV
muscle afferents), perception of effort increases in
correlation with the increase in motor related cortical
potential (i.e. known to be an index of central motor
command; de Morree et al., 2012). Secondly,
perceived exertion and the motor related cortical
potentials are both decreased following ingestion of
caffeine (de Morree et al., 2014). Thirdly, disrupting
the supplementary motor area via continuous theta-
burst transcranial magnetic stimulation increases
perception of effort (Zenon et al., 2015). Finally,
Kjaer et al. (1999) demonstrated that perception of
effort is increased during cycling exercise with
reduced afferent feedback due to epidural anaesthe-
sia. Importantly, it has to be noted that the corollary
discharge model does not exclude an indirect role of
afferent feedback on perception of effort through its
role in motor control (i.e. direct adjustment of the
central motor command). The corollary discharge
model only states that afferent feedback is not the
sensory signal generating the feeling of effort (i.e.
stimulation of muscle afferents does not generate
the feeling of effort but other sensations such as
muscle pain or muscle tension). Indeed, inhibition
of motoneurons at a spinal or supraspinal level
induced by afferent feedback can potentially be com-
pensated by an increase in central motor command to
ensure the same submaximal force production. This
inhibition-induced increase in central motor
command (i.e. sensory signal generating perception
of effort) results in an increase in perception of
effort, even though afferent feedback is not con-
sidered to be the sensory signal generating perception
of effort.
Combined model. It is well accepted that corollary
discharges do not only generate specific sensation,
but also modify the processing of incoming sensory
information. The combined model of perceived exer-
tion postulates that perception of effort results from
the integration of both afferent feedback and the cor-
ollary discharge associated with the central motor
command. Despite several publications suggesting
the validity of this model (e.g. Amann et al., 2010;
Bergstrom et al., 2015), no study has aimed to
specifically test it. However, as perception of effort
is not reduced during cycling with reduced afferent
feedback (Kjaer et al., 1999), the validity of this
model is unlikely.
Perspectives
It is now accepted in the field of Exercise Science that
perception of effort plays a crucial role in endurance
performance (Pageaux, 2014), rehabilitation (Noble
& Robertson, 1996) and human behaviour
(Marcora, 2010). Despite that researchers in Exercise
Science did not reach a consensus on the sensory
signal(s) generating perception of effort (e.g. Amann
et al., 2010; Marcora, 2009), experimental results
suggest that the sensory signal involved in the gener-
ation of perceived exertion is the corollary discharge
associated with the central motor command.
However, as it exists only few studies (e.g. de
Morree et al., 2012, 2014) (i) focusing on investi-
gating the underlying mechanisms of perceived exer-
tion, (ii) excluding other sensations than effort from
its definition and (iii) reporting instructions provided
to the subjects, future studies should aim to test the
validity of the corollary discharge model and the com-
bined model of perceived exertion by manipulating
afferent feedback. Furthermore, fundamental
research should aim to get a better insight into the
underlying mechanisms generating perception of
effort by identifying the brain areas and the neuro-
transmitters involve in its generation. Additionally,
identifying correlates of perceived exertion (de
Morree & Marcora, 2010, 2012; de Morree et al.,
2012, 2014; Nicolo, Marcora, & Sacchetti, 2015)
during various kinds of physical tasks could also help
to understand the role of effort perception in regu-
lation of human behaviour. Such advances could
lead to innovative applied perspectives to decrease
perception of effort in athletes, patients and sedentary
populations. Indeed, as perception of effort has been
suggested to limit endurance performance (Marcora
& Staiano, 2010), any decrease in perception of
effort should improve performance. As perception of
effort is commonly used with patients to prescribe
individualized rehabilitation (Noble & Robertson,
1996), it seems interesting to manipulate perception
of effort to manipulate the workload during exercises
and improve long-term benefits for patients. Finally,
as perception of effort has been linked to engagement
and adherence in physical activities, decreasing per-
ception of effort in sedentary populations could be
an innovative approach in the fight against the expan-
sion of sedentary lifestyles (Marcora, 2015).
As demonstrated in the present review, humans
have the ability to rate effort independently from
other sensations related to the exercise. Conse-
quently, special attention is to be paid by researchers
and clinicians to ensure that subjects do not include
other exercise-related sensations in their rating of
effort, and future studies should report the definition
of effort and the instructions provided to the subjects.
Perception of effort in Exercise Science 7
Downloaded
by
[European
College
of
Sport
Science]
at
07:45
30
May
2016
10. The inclusion in scientific articles of its definition and
the instructions provided to the subjects will ensure
the exclusion of confounding factors such as pain or
discomfort, and will help researchers and clinicians
to develop applied perspectives for athletes, patients
and sedentary populations.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Romuald Lepers and Alexis
Mauger for their feedback on the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
ORCID
Benjamin Pageaux http://orcid.org/0000-0001-
9302-5183
References
Abbiss, C. R., Peiffer, J. J., Meeusen, R., & Skorski, S. (2015). Role
of ratings of perceived exertion during self-paced exercise: What
are we actually measuring? Sports Medicine, 45(9), 1235–1243.
doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0344-5
Amann, M., Blain, G. M., Proctor, L. T., Sebranek, J. J.,
Pegelow, D. F., & Dempsey, J. A. (2010). Group III and IV
muscle afferents contribute to ventilatory and cardiovascular
response to rhythmic exercise in humans. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 109(4), 966–976. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00462.
2010
Angius, L., Hopker, J. G., Marcora, S. M., & Mauger, A. R.
(2015). The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation of
the motor cortex on exercise-induced pain. European Journal
of Applied Physiology. doi:10.1007/s00421-015-3212-y
Astokorki, A. H., & Mauger, A. R. (2016). Tolerance of exercise-
induced pain at a fixed rating of perceived exertion predicts time
trial cycling performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Science in Sports. doi:10.1111/sms.12659
Bergstrom, H. C., Housh, T. J., Cochrane, K. C., Jenkins, N. D.,
Zuniga, J. M., Buckner, S. L., … Cramer, J. T. (2015). Factors
underlying the perception of effort during constant heart rate
running above and below the critical heart rate. European
Journal of Applied Physiology, 115(10), 2231–2241. doi:10.
1007/s00421-015-3204-y
Blanchfield, A. W., Hardy, J., de Morree, H. M., Staiano, W., &
Marcora, S. M. (2013). Talking yourself out of exhaustion:
The effects of self-talk on endurance performance. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise, 46(5), 998–1007. doi:10.
1249/MSS.0000000000000184
Blanchfield, A. W., Hardy, J., & Marcora, S. M. (2014). Non-
conscious visual cues related to affect and action alter percep-
tion of effort and endurance performance. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 8, 967. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00967
Borg, E. (2007). On perceived exertion and its measurement (Doctoral
thesis). Department of Psychology, Stockholm University,
Stockholm.
Borg, G. (1962). Physical performance and perceived exertion. Lund:
Gleerup.
Borg, G. (1998). Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Brehm, J. W., & Self, E. A. (1989). The intensity of motivation.
Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 109–131. doi:10.1146/
annurev.ps.40.020189.000545
Christian, R. J., Bishop, D. J., Billaut, F., & Girard, O. (2014). The
role of sense of effort on self-selected cycling power output.
Frontiers in Physiology, 5, 115. doi:10.3389/fphys.2014.00115
Craig, A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of
the physiological condition of the body. Nature Reviews
Neuroscience, 3(8), 655–666. doi:10.1038/nrn894
Eston, R., Coquart, J., Lamb, K., & Parfitt, G. (2015).
Misperception: No evidence to dismiss RPE as regulator of
moderate-intensity exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 47(12), 2676. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000748
Ferrero, G. (1894). L’inertie mentale et la loi du moindre effort.
Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger, 37, 169–182.
Gagnon, P., Bussières, J. S., Ribeiro, F., Gagnon, S. L., Saey, D.,
Gagné, N., … Maltais, F. (2012). Influences of spinal anesthe-
sia on exercise tolerance in patients with chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical
Care Medicine, 186(7), 606–615. doi:10.1164/rccm.201203-
0404OC
Groslambert, A., Grange, C. C., Perrey, S., Maire, J., Tordi, N., &
Rouillon, J. D. (2006). Effects of aging on perceived exertion
and pain during arm cranking in women 70 to 80 years old.
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 5(2), 208–214.
Impellizzeri, F. M., Rampinini, E., Coutts, A. J., Sassi, A., &
Marcora, S. M. (2004). Use of RPE-based training load in
soccer. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(6),
1042–1047.
Jones, H. S., Williams, E. L., Marchant, D., Sparks, S. A.,
Midgley, A. W., Bridge, C. A., & McNaughton, L. (2015).
Distance-dependent association of affect with pacing strategy
in cycling time trials. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 47(4), 825–832. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000475
Jones, L. A. (1995). The senses of effort and force during fatiguing
contractions. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology,
384, 305–313.
Jones, L. A., & Hunter, I. W. (1983). Effect of fatigue on force sen-
sation. Experimental Neurology, 81(3), 640–650.
Kjaer, M., Hanel, B., Worm, L., Perko, G., Lewis, S. F., Sahlin,
K., … Secher, N. H. (1999). Cardiovascular and neuroendo-
crine responses to exercise in hypoxia during impaired neural
feedback from muscle. The American Journal of Physiology, 277
(1 Pt 2), R76–R85.
Kuppuswamy, A., Clark, E. V., Turner, I. F., Rothwell, J. C., &
Ward, N. S. (2015). Post-stroke fatigue: A deficit in corticomo-
tor excitability? Brain: A Journal of Neurology, 138(Pt 1), 136–
148. doi:10.1093/brain/awu306
Macdonald, J. H., Fearn, L., Jibani, M., & Marcora, S. M. (2012).
Exertional fatigue in patients with CKD. American Journal of
Kidney Diseases: The Official Journal of the National Kidney
Foundation, 60(6), 930–939. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.06.021
Marcora, S. (2009). Perception of effort during exercise is indepen-
dent of afferent feedback from skeletal muscles, heart, and
lungs. Journal of Applied Physiology, 106(6), 2060–2062.
doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.90378.2008
Marcora, S. (2015). Can doping be a good thing? Using psychoac-
tive drugs to facilitate physical activity behaviour. Sports
Medicine. doi:10.1007/s40279-015-0412-x
Marcora, S. M. (2010). Effort: Perception of. In E. B. Goldstein
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of perception (pp. 380–383). Thousaand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
8 B. Pageaux
Downloaded
by
[European
College
of
Sport
Science]
at
07:45
30
May
2016
11. Marcora, S. M., Bosio, A., & de Morree, H. M. (2008). Locomotor
muscle fatigue increases cardiorespiratory responses and
reduces performance during intense cycling exercise indepen-
dently from metabolic stress. American Journal of Physiology,
Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 294(3),
R874–R883. doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00678.2007
Marcora, S. M., & Staiano, W. (2010). The limit to exercise toler-
ance in humans: Mind over muscle? European Journal of Applied
Physiology, 109(4), 763–770. doi:10.1007/s00421-010-1418-6
Martin, K., Thompson, K. G., Keegan, R., Ball, N., & Rattray, B.
(2014). Mental fatigue does not affect maximal anaerobic exer-
cise performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology. doi:10.
1007/s00421-014-3052-1
Mauger, A. R. (2013). Fatigue is a pain-the use of novel neurophy-
siological techniques to understand the fatigue-pain relation-
ship. Frontiers in Physiology, 4, 104. doi:10.3389/fphys.2013.
00104
McCloskey, D. I. (1981/2011). Corollary discharges: Motor com-
mands and perception. In Supplement 2: Handbook of physiology,
the nervous system, motor control (pp. 1415–1447). Retrieved from
http://www.comprehensivephysiology.com/WileyCDA/
CompPhysArticle/refId-cp010232.html
McCloskey, D. I., Ebeling, P., & Goodwin, G. M. (1974).
Estimation of weights and tensions and apparent involvement
of a “sense of effort”. Experimental Neurology, 42(1), 220–232.
de Morree, H. M., Klein, C., & Marcora, S. M. (2012). Perception
of effort reflects central motor command during movement
execution. Psychophysiology, 49, 1242–1253. doi:10.1111/j.
1469-8986.2012.01399.x
de Morree, H. M., Klein, C., & Marcora, S. M. (2014). Cortical
substrates of the effects of caffeine and time-on-task on percep-
tion of effort. Journal of Applied Physiology, 117(12), 1514–1523.
doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00898.2013
de Morree, H. M., & Marcora, S. M. (2010). The face of effort:
Frowning muscle activity reflects effort during a physical task.
Biological Psychology, 85(3), 377–382. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.
2010.08.009
de Morree, H. M., & Marcora, S. M. (2012). Frowning muscle
activity and perception of effort during constant-workload
cycling. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 112(5), 1967–
1972. doi:10.1007/s00421-011-2138-2
de Morree, H. M., & Marcora, S. M. (2013). Effects of isolated
locomotor muscle fatigue on pacing and time trial performance.
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 113(9), 2371–2380.
doi:10.1007/s00421-013-2673-0
de Morree, H. M., & Marcora, S. M. (2015). Psychobiology of per-
ceived effort during physical tasks. In G. H. E. Gendolla, M.
Tops, & S. L. Koole (Eds.), Handbook of biobehavioral
approaches to self-regulation (pp. 255–270). New York, NY:
Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.
1007/978-1-4939-1236-0_17
Nicolo, A., Marcora, S. M., & Sacchetti, M. (2015). Respiratory
frequency is strongly associated with perceived exertion
during time trials of different duration. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 1–8. doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1102315
Noble, B. J., & Robertson, R. J. (1996). Perceived exertion.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Champaign.
O’Connor, P. J., & Cook, D. B. (1999). Exercise and pain: The
neurobiology, measurement, and laboratory study of pain in
relation to exercise in humans. Exercise and Sport Sciences
Reviews, 27, 119–166.
O’Connor, P. J., & Cook, D. B. (2001). Moderate-intensity muscle
pain can be produced and sustained during cycle ergometry.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(6), 1046–1051.
Pageaux, B. (2014). The psychobiological model of endurance per-
formance: An effort-based decision-making theory to explain
self-paced endurance performance. Sports Medicine, 44(9),
1319–1320. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0198-2
Pageaux, B., Angius, L., Hopker, J. G., Lepers, R., & Marcora, S.
M. (2015). Central alterations of neuromuscular function and
feedback from group III–IV muscle afferents following exhaus-
tive high intensity one leg dynamic exercise. American Journal of
Physiology, Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology,
308(12), R1008–R1020. ajpregu 00280 02014. doi:10.1152/
ajpregu.00280.2014
Pageaux, B., Lepers, R., Dietz, K. C., & Marcora, S. M. (2014).
Response inhibition impairs subsequent self-paced endurance
performance. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 114(5),
1095–1105. doi:10.1007/s00421-014-2838-5
Pageaux, B., Marcora, S. M., & Lepers, R. (2013). Prolonged
mental exertion does not alter neuromuscular function of the
knee extensors. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 45
(12), 2254–2264. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e31829b504a
Pageaux, B., Marcora, S. M., Rozand, V., & Lepers, R. (2015).
Mental fatigue induced by prolonged self-regulation does not
exacerbate central fatigue during subsequent whole-body
endurance exercise. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 361.
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00067
Pollak, K. A., Swenson, J. D., Vanhaitsma, T. A., Hughen, R. W.,
Jo, D., Light, K. C., … Light, A. R. (2014). Exogenously
applied muscle metabolites synergistically evoke sensations of
muscle fatigue and pain in human subjects. Experimental
Physiology, 99(2), 368–380. doi:10.1113/expphysiol.2013.
075812
Preston, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Elbow grease: When action
feels like work. In E. Morsella, J. A. Bargh, & P. M. Gollwitzer
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of human action. Social cognition and
social neuroscience (pp. 569–586). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/index.
cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2008-14699-027
Proske, U., & Gandevia, S. C. (2012). The proprioceptive senses:
Their roles in signaling body shape, body position and move-
ment, and muscle force. Physiological Reviews, 92(4), 1651–
1697. doi:10.1152/physrev.00048.2011
Scotland, S., Adamo, D. E., & Martin, B. J. (2014). Sense of effort
revisited: Relative contributions of sensory feedback and effer-
ent copy. Neuroscience Letters, 561, 208–212. doi:10.1016/j.
neulet.2013.12.041
Smirmaul, B. P. (2012). Sense of effort and other unpleasant sen-
sations during exercise: Clarifying concepts and mechanisms.
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(5), 308–311. doi:10.
1136/bjsm.2010.071407
Taylor, J. (2013). Kinesthetic inputs. In D. Pfaff (Ed.), Neuroscience
in the 21st Century (pp. 931–964). New York, NY: Springer.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/
10.1007%2F978-1-4614-1997-6_31
Utter, A. C., Kang, J., & Roberston, R. J. (2007). Perceived exer-
tion. ACSM Current Comment. Retrieved from http://www.
acsm.org/docs/current-comments/perceivedexertion.pdf
Williamson, J. W., McColl, R., Mathews, D., Mitchell, J. H.,
Raven, P. B., & Morgan, W. P. (2001). Hypnotic manipulation
of effort sense during dynamic exercise: Cardiovascular
responses and brain activation. Journal of Applied Physiology,
90(4), 1392–1399.
Williamson, J. W., McColl, R., Mathews, D., Mitchell, J. H.,
Raven, P. B., & Morgan, W. P. (2002). Brain activation by
central command during actual and imagined handgrip under
hypnosis. Journal of Applied Physiology, 92(3), 1317–1324.
doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00939.2001
Wright, R. A. (1996). Brehm’s theory of motivation as a model
of effort and cardiovascular response. In P. M. Gollwitzer &
J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition
Perception of effort in Exercise Science 9
Downloaded
by
[European
College
of
Sport
Science]
at
07:45
30
May
2016
12. and motivation to behavior (pp. 424–453). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Wright, R. A. (2008). Refining the prediction of effort: Brehm’s
distinction between potential motivation and motivation inten-
sity. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 682–701.
Zenon, A., Sidibe, M., & Olivier, E. (2015). Disrupting the
supplementary motor area makes physical effort appear less
effortful. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of
the Society for Neuroscience, 35(23), 8737–8744. doi:10.1523/
JNEUROSCI.3789-14.2015
10 B. Pageaux
Downloaded
by
[European
College
of
Sport
Science]
at
07:45
30
May
2016
View publication stats
![Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tejs20
Download by: [European College of Sport Science] Date: 30 May 2016, At: 07:45
European Journal of Sport Science
ISSN: 1746-1391 (Print) 1536-7290 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20
Perception of effort in Exercise Science: Definition,
measurement and perspectives
Benjamin Pageaux
To cite this article: Benjamin Pageaux (2016): Perception of effort in Exercise Science:
Definition, measurement and perspectives, European Journal of Sport Science, DOI:
10.1080/17461391.2016.1188992
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2016.1188992
Published online: 30 May 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data]()