Introduction: Pacing can be defined as an ability to distribute available energy resources during the race (Hettinga et al., 2006). It`s a determinant of athletic performance, affected by an interaction between previous experience, performance feedback and individual risk-traits (Micklewright et al., 2014). Selective processing of internal physiological and external feedback information is a complex process that informs pace decision-making (Renfree et al., 2014), but little is known about how athletes seek-out and interpret information to make pacing decisions. This study compared information-seeking behavior between novice and experienced cyclists. Methods: Novice (n=10) and experienced (n=10) cyclists performed two 16.09 km self-paced time-trials (TT`s), one week apart. Time-trials were performed on a Velotron cycle ergometer using a video simulated course. Performance information (power, speed, cadence, distance and time), heart rate and the 6-20 RPE scale were displayed in front of participants during TT`s. A head-mounted eye-tracker was used to measure the frequency and duration of gazes towards each type of information. Gaze was coded as `other` when participants were not looking at any of the information specified above. Cumulative gaze duration for each information source was calculated as a percentage of TT completion time. Between and within-subjects ANOVA`s were used to compare performance, fixation times and fixation frequencies between groups and trials. Results: Performance between TT`s did not change for experts (27:55±1:21 vs. 27:42±1:30 mins:secs) or novices (30:53±3:14 vs. 30:16±2:56 mins:secs). Cycling speed in each segment was faster among experts compared to novices, but both groups maintained an even pace through the TT`s. In TT1, experts primarily looked at speed (30.1%) followed by other (19.3%) then distance (18.3%). Novices were less selective during TT1, looking at distance (21.6%), video (15.3%), other (14.3%), and power (13.4%) (Fig 1A). Experts looked at speed more in TT2 (Speed 33.4%, Distance 17.7%, and other 16%) and novices looked at the video less (Distance 23.1%, Speed 14.4%, Power 13.8%, Other 13.6% and Video 10.5%) (Fig1B). Differences in fixation time were found between groups for primary (P=0.003) and secondary sources of information (P=0.043) (Fig 2A). Differences were also found in frequency for primary (P=0.003) and secondary source of information (P=0.04) respectively (Fig. 2B). Discussion: Experts were found to look at speed as their primary source of information compared to novices who looked at distance. This may indicate a preference for performance related decision-making in experts compared to a focus on task completion among novices.
© Copyright 2015 Journal of Science and Cycling. Cycling Research Center. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.