See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320092276

Real-time quantitative performance feedback during strength exercise

improves motivation, competitiveness, mood, and performance

Article · September 2017

DOI: 10.1177/1541931213601750

CITATIONS READS

2 229

5 authors, including:

Kyle Wilson Neil de Joux

Seeing Machines University of Nottingham
31 PUBLICATIONS   137 CITATIONS    18 PUBLICATIONS   68 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

James Head Jonathon Weakley

Army Research Laboratory Australian Catholic University
32 PUBLICATIONS   326 CITATIONS    41 PUBLICATIONS   176 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Interaction of Physical and Cognitive Fatigue View project

Carnegie Adolescent Rugby Research (CARR) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jonathon Weakley on 12 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting 1546

Real-time quantitative performance feedback during strength exercise improves

motivation, competitiveness, mood, and performance

Kyle M. Wilson William S. Helton Neil R. de Joux

University of Huddersfield George Mason University University of Nottingham
Huddersfield, UK Fairfax, VA, USA Nottingham, UK

James R. Head Jonathon J. S. Weakley

U.S. Army Research Laboratory Leeds Beckett University
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA Leeds, UK

Providing quantitative feedback on performance in real-time appears to improve performance in a strength

training context. Less is known about the associated effects on psychological variables. Fifteen rugby
athletes performed a strength training exercise both with and without objective performance feedback
provided in real-time. Feedback increased performance, consistent with previous research. Feedback also led
to higher ratings of task competitiveness, state motivation, mood, and workload. These findings provide
insight into possible underlying mechanisms responsible for the feedback’s facilitative effects on
performance. The findings also suggests that providing this type of feedback may have benefits within other
industries, where attempts are frequently made to increase adherence to exercise and rehabilitation programs.
This research carries important implications for the design and use of technology within both the sports
science and healthcare industry.

INTRODUCTION Furthermore, providing this type of feedback may carry

New technology is making it possible to measure and
provide physical performance data to users in real-time and
in a user-friendly manner. Examples of such technology
include wearable health and fitness trackers (e.g., those made
by FitBitTM and Garmin), and athlete tracking systems
utilising GPS and accelerometer information (e.g., Catapult’s
OptimEye).
In the strength and conditioning (also known as weight
training or resistance training) industry, a promising
technology involves the use of linear position transducer
tools that measure the velocity of movements. Recently these
tools have been paired with accompanying software apps,
providing athletes and coaches with instantaneous
Copyright 2017 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. DOI 10.1177/1541931213601750
additional benefits that have so far received less attention and
are not yet properly understood. Based on informal
observations by the experimenter, Singh (2016) suggested
that increases in motivation and competitiveness may be
responsible for the performance improvements regarding
increased velocity. Argus et al. (2011) and Randell et al.
(2011) also suggested that motivational increases could be a
latent predictor of the physical performance improvements
they observed. Again though this was speculative however,
and no attempt to measure motivation was made.
Similar findings have been observed with a clinical
population in physical rehabilitation. The efficacy of
providing feedback to patients engaging in rehabilitation
exercises was investigated by Carlson, Bennett, and Metcalfe

quantitative feedback on movement velocity. Training for
strength and power at high movement velocities is beneficial
for athlete development, and knowing the velocity that
athletes are lifting with is highly useful information for
monitoring athletes’ progress (e.g., González-Badillo &
Sánchez-Medina, 2010; Randell et al., 2011). Efficient
development of strength and power also carries implications
for the general population. Resistance training has been
associated with improved health and a decrease in the risk of
chronic disease and disability (Hurley & Kokkinos, 1987).
Interestingly, the provision of instantaneous feedback
(i.e., in real-time) on movement velocity appears to offer
immediate performance benefits too. Providing people with
real-time feedback on their movement velocity may enable
them to lift weights faster (i.e., with greater acceleration)
than they otherwise would be able to. Argus, Gill, Keogh, &
Hopkins (2011) as well as Randell et al. (2011) found that
providing immediate feedback on movement velocity during
a strength training protocol led to greater movement
velocities. Singh (2016) observed a similar trend and also
found increases in strength and power over a five-week
training programme (although these findings are less certain
due to a small sample size).
(1992), who found that providing visual feedback on
performance increased force production in the quadriceps
muscle relative to a condition without feedback. They
suggested that the feedback enhanced motivation, although
this was not tested. Other research suggests that motivation
levels are an important predictor of adherence to
rehabilitation programmes as well as outcomes (Friedrich,
Gittler, Halberstadt, Cermak, & Heiller, 1998; Maclean,
Pound, Wolfe, & Rudd, 2000). Similarly, participant mood
has been shown to be linked with adherence to rehabilitation
programs (Glazer, Emery, Frid, & Banyasz, 2002) and
exercise programs for the elderly (Stineman et al., 2011).
If providing objective performance feedback in real-time
does improve performance and relevant psychological factors
such as motivation and mood, incorporating real-time visual
feedback into technology may be an effective method to
facilitate engagement and adherence to exercise programmes.
Additionally, this technology may be a way of gaining an
important competitive advantage for athletes.
The current study tested whether providing real-time
quantitative feedback on lifting performance (concentric
velocity; ms-1) increased performance itself. It also
investigated the effect that feedback had on several relevant
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting
psychological variables, including task competitiveness,
motivation, workload, and mood.
It was hypothesised that providing performance feedback
would lead to greater mean concentric velocities for
repetitions, replicating previous findings. Importantly,
feedback was also expected to enhance motivation,
competitiveness, and mood.
METHOD
Participants
Fifteen male sub-elite rugby union athletes (M = 17.1
years, SD = 0.5 years) participated. All were recruited from a
private school rugby team in the United Kingdom. Each
participant had at least six months of resistance training
experience, which included experience with the type of lift
performed in the current study. Experimental procedures
were approved by the institutional ethics committee, while
assent and parental consent were provided along with
permission from the school.
Materials
Mean concentric velocity. Performance was measured
using a GymAware (Kinetic Performance Technology,
Canberra, Australia) linear position transducer. This tool
consists of a spring-powered retractable cord attached at one
end to a barbell and attached at the other end to a pulley
system coupled with an optical encoder. The velocity of the
barbell is calculated with a one millisecond resolution using
the extension and retraction of the cord.
Feedback. Visual feedback on performance was presented
using the GymAware software. Mean concentric velocity
(ms-1) was displayed immediately after each repetition on an
iPad positioned at eye-level directly in front of participants.
Exercise protocol. Participants performed the barbell
back squat exercise protocol for both tasks (see Darrall-
Jones, Jones & Till, 2015). With the bar resting on the upper
trapezius, participants were required to lower themselves so
that the top of their thighs were parallel with the floor. The
eccentric (muscle lengthening; lowering phase) portion of the
back squat was two seconds long with a one second pause at
the bottom of the exercise. After this participants were
required to complete the concentric portion (muscle
shortening; where they raised themselves back up) of the
exercise as forcefully and powerfully as possible, returning to
the starting position. This describes one ‘repetition’ (i.e., one
lift). Participants each used a weight that represented 60% of
their individual maximal back squat (i.e., one repetition
max), which was calculated with estimation methods used by
Baechle and Earle (2008) in the week prior to testing.
Subjective measures. The NASA-Task Load Index
(NASA-TLX; Hart and Staveland, 1988) was used to
measure subjective workload. This tool is used extensively
across the human factors and human performance
community, with wide applicability across domains (Stanton
et al., 2013). Competitiveness was measured using an
adapted version of the 4-item competitiveness scale from
Anderson and Carnagey (2009), designed to measure the
competitiveness of a task. The Dundee Stress State
Questionnaire (DSSQ; Matthews, Joyner, Gilliland, Huggins,
& Falconer 1999) was used to measure participants’ state
1547
motivation and mood. The motivation scale consisted of
eight items, while the mood scale consisted of 29 items that
between them measured energetic arousal, anxiety, hedonic
tone, and frustration. All items were scored on 10-pt Likert
scales.
Procedure
All testing was conducted at 10:30 am on the same day of
the week, with 72 hours rest occurring prior to procedures.
Participants were instructed to maintain normal dietary habits
in the 24 hours prior to testing, with caffeine not being
consumed within 12 hours of the tasks. Upon arrival
participants completed the DSSQ motivation and mood pre-
task questionnaires. They were then given instructions on the
exercise protocol, which was the same for both the feedback
and no-feedback conditions. Participants completed one set
of 10 repetitions of the back squat exercise. Mean concentric
velocity (ms-1) was obtained through the GymAware optical
encoder. In the feedback condition, the numerical value for
mean concentric velocity of each repetition was visually
provided to the participant at the completion of each
repetition. This value was displayed at eye level directly in
front of the subject using an iPad. Prior to completing the
feedback condition participants were informed how to
interpret the mean concentric velocity value. In the no-
feedback condition participants were not shown these values.
No other verbal feedback or communication was provided
throughout either of the tasks. Participants completed each
condition one week apart. Following the exercise task
participants completed the NASA-TLX scale, the
competitiveness questionnaire, and post-task questionnaire
measures of motivation and mood.
Design
The study used a repeated measures design, with
participants completing both levels of the independent
variable (feedback: feedback vs. no-feedback). Task order
was counterbalanced, with a randomly-selected half (N = 8)
of participants completing the feedback condition first, and
the other half (N = 7) completing the no-feedback condition
first. The dependent variables were mean concentric velocity
(ms-1) of each repetition, and subjective measures of state
motivation, task competitiveness, workload, and mood.
RESULTS
Performance
A 2 (order) x 2 (condition) x 10 (repetitions) mixed
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using the
mean concentric velocities for each participant on each
repetition (see Figure 1). Assumptions of sphericity were
checked with Mauchly’s test of sphericity. Where Mauchly’s
test was found to be significant, Greenhouse-Geisser
corrected degrees of freedom were used (Field, 2009).
There was a significant main effect for condition, F(1, 13)
= 11.70, p = .005, η2p = 0.47, with participants performing
repetitions at a significantly greater velocity on average in the
feedback condition (M = 0.65 ms-1, SD = 0.05) than the no-
feedback condition (M = 0.70ms-1, SD = 0.04). There was
also a significant main effect for repetition, F(3.6, 47.2) =
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting 1548

413.14, p <.001, η2p = 0.97. There was a significant feedback, F(1,13) = 91.21, p < .001, η2p = 0.88. Overall,
interaction effect between condition and repetitions, F(2.3, global workload was higher for the feedback condition than
29.5) = 4.90, p = .012, η2p = 0.27. There was no main effect the no-feedback condition, F(1,13) = 14.67, p = .002, η2p =
for task order, p > .05, nor were there any other main or 0.53.
interaction effects, p > .05. The repetition effect was then
followed up with trend analyses. There were significant Table 1. Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for each
trends for linear, F(1,13) = 1853.15, p < .001l; quadratic, condition and effect sizes for main effects.
F(1,13) = 5.08, p = .042; and cubic, F(1,13) = 11.44, p = No-feedback Feedback Effect
size (η2p)
.005. The concentric velocities observed and the downward Mean concentric velocity 0.65 (0.05) 0.70 (0.04) .474
trend across repetitions are within the usual ranges observed
in strength and conditioning research (Izquierdo et al., 2006). Competitiveness** 5.90 (1.18) 8.63 (0.38) .851

Mental demand** 6.13 (1.30) 7.87 (0.92) .651

0.85
Physical demand** 5.40 (0.91) 7.13 (0.99) .731
0.80 Feedback
Mean concentric velocity (ms-1)

Non-feedback Temporal demand* 6.27 (1.16) 7.40 (1.45) .349

0.75
Performance demand** 6.07 (0.70) 7.47 (1.30) .534
0.70
Effort** 7.33 (0.82) 8.07 (0.80) .677
0.65
Frustration** 4.60 (1.18) 1.60 (1.12) .875
0.60
Global workload** 5.97 (0.66) 6.59 (0.63) .530
0.55
Motivation (change)** -0.57 (0.58) 0.13 (0.39) .542
0.50
Hedonic tone (change)* -0.26 (0.39) 0.03 (0.20) .300
0.45
Energetic arousal (change) -0.06 (0.13) 0.07 (0.23) .193
0.40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tense arousal (change) 0.00 (0.22) -0.09 (0.28) .056
Repetition
Anger/frustration (change) 0.08 (0.18) 0.05 (0.23) .005
Figure 1. Mean concentric velocities (ms-1) for each condition over ** p < .01, * p < .05 for main effects. Note: DSSQ mood measures are
each of the ten repetitions. Error bars are standard error of the mean. reverse-scored to assist understanding; positive values reflect change in
desirable direction. All subjective measures are scored on 10-pt Likert scale.
Subjective measures
DISCUSSION
The subjective measures (see Table 1 for descriptive
statistics) were each tested using 2 (order) x 2 (condition) As hypothesised, providing participants with
mixed ANOVAs. Task competitiveness was significantly instantaneous performance feedback improved performance,
higher for the feedback condition, F(1,13) = 74.26, p < .001, with participants performing the lifting phase of the squat
η2p = 0.85. Motivation reduced from pre-task to post-task for exercise significantly faster in the feedback condition relative
the no-feedback condition, and conversely increased for the to the no-feedback condition. Motivation and
feedback condition. The difference between the change competitiveness were both significantly greater when
scores was significant, F(1,13) = 15.42, p = .002 , η2p = 0.54. feedback was provided. Feedback also led to significant
For the mood scales, changes from pre- to post-task often improvements in mood (hedonic tone) and higher ratings of
went in the opposite direction for the feedback condition workload relative to the no-feedback condition.
relative to the no-feedback condition. There was only The finding that feedback led to improvements in
however a significant difference observed for hedonic tone, performance is consistent with previous research (Argus et
F(1,13) = 5.57, p = .035, η2p = 0.35, indicating that the al., 2011; Randell et al., 2011; Singh, 2016). A visual
change in hedonic tone (positive feelings) was different inspection of the trend over repetitions (see Figure 1)
between conditions. Hedonic tone decreased from pre-task to suggests that the performance difference between feedback
post-task for the no-feedback condition, while it showed a and no-feedback was initially small, but then increased
marginal increase for the feedback condition. considerably over the task. The fact that differences were
No apriori hypotheses were made in relation to subjective apparent (although this is debateable) even at the very first
workload, however we note that significant differences repetition could suggest participants were already
between conditions were observed for every one of the anticipating the feedback; whatever benefits they were
NASA-TLX measures. Ratings for five of the six subscales receiving (see further discussion below regarding the
were higher for the feedback condition than the no-feedback psychological variables) were partly experienced in
condition: Mental demand, F(1,13) = 24.29, p < .001, η2p = anticipation. The beneficial effect of feedback effect then
0.65; physical demand, F(1,13) = 35.17, p < .001, η2p = 0.73; became progressively larger as they were actually exposed to
temporal demand, F(1,13) = 6.96, p =.020, η2p = 0.35; the feedback following each repetition.
performance demand, F(1,13) = 14.91, p = .002, η2p = 0.53; The finding that participants judged task competitiveness
and effort, F(1,13) = 27.30, p < .001, η2p = 0.68. The to be higher when feedback was provided supports
remaining subscale of frustration showed the opposite speculation by Singh (2016). Singh, along with Argus et al.
however, with frustration scores higher for no-feedback than (2011) and Randell et al. (2011) also speculated that
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting
providing real-time objective feedback on concentric velocity
increased athletes’ motivation. This is supported by the
current findings, with participants reporting increases in state
motivation in the feedback condition. It may be useful to
attempt to identify which specific aspects of feedback
provision are responsible for the motivation and
competitiveness increases. For example, identifying the
relative contributions of aspects such as the quality of
feedback (e.g., if feedback is instead qualitative or subjective
will it still be as effective?), the modality of the feedback
(e.g., verbal vs. visual), the digital nature of the graphics (see
Rieber, 1991), the immediacy of feedback (e.g., what effect
does presenting the feedback after the set instead of after
each individual repetition have?), and the anticipation versus
the actual experience of feedback (see discussion above)
would be useful avenues to explore. Furthermore, whether
improvements persist over time is important to know—
existing evidence suggests that at least the performance
improvement effects do (Cox & Matyas, 1983; Croce, 1986)
but it is not known what the longitudinal effects on
motivation or competitiveness are.
Further research is required to establish whether there are
direct causal relationships between motivation (and/or
competitiveness and mood) and the performance
improvements seen following the provision of feedback. As
described by Croce (1986), higher motivational states may
lead to a variety of physiological responses such as an
increase in epinephrine levels. It is thought that these
physiological responses are indicators of increased muscle
activation, which could partly explain the greater velocity
achieved in the feedback condition. The finding that there
were no significant differences for reports of energetic
arousal between the conditions may cast some doubt upon
this explanation however. Regarding state motivation, it may
also be useful to attempt to distinguish between intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation (see Deci, 1975).
Subjective workload was shown to be significantly higher
when feedback was provided versus when feedback was
absent, which likely reflects a greater level of effort or
exertion. This does appear to contrast with Singh’s (2016)
finding that ratings of perceived exertion (RPE; Borg, 1982)
were not significantly different between the feedback and no-
feedback groups, however it should be noted that in Singh’s
research the sample size was small (N = 3 in feedback group;
N = 2 in no-feedback group), and there was a clear trend
showing that RPE was consistently higher for the feedback
group. Within psychology, attempts are often made to reduce
workload (although see Young & Stanton, 2002) during tasks
as greater workload is associated with increased task
demands and a reduction in available cognitive resources
with which to perform secondary tasks, or to respond to
unforeseen events. In a strength training context though,
greater workload is more likely to align with training goals;
often the goal during training is to exert as much effort as
possible (Behm & Sale, 1993), without compromising form
or hurting oneself.
Interestingly, reported frustration levels were much lower
for the feedback group. This may reflect increases in positive
emotions such as satisfaction or success which might arise
from the provision of the feedback. This aligns with the
finding that hedonic tone was higher for the feedback
condition than the no-feedback condition; essentially
feedback led to increased positive mood relative to the no-
1549
feedback condition. This could have important implications
for exercise programme adherence. Depressed mood has
previously been linked with higher attrition rates for
rehabilitation (Glazer et al., 2002) and elderly exercise
programs (Stineman et al., 2011). Furthermore, enjoyment of
exercise sessions appeared to mediate the effect of exercise
interventions on exercise frequency in a clinical population
(Hagberg, Lindahl, Nyberg, & Hellénius, 2009). If the
beneficial mood-related effects seen here with athletes also
occur with non-athlete populations, providing real-time
performance feedback may be one way to indirectly improve
exercise adherence for elderly people, patients undergoing
rehabilitation, and perhaps recreational exercisers. Future
research should investigate whether the effects observed here
do indeed occur with non-athlete populations, and what
impact this has on adherence.
The sole use of male participants was a limitation in the
current study. Previous research has found conflicting results
in relation to how males and females differ in their reaction
to positive feedback (Vallerand & Reid, 1984; 1988),
although these studies used subjective feedback that was
qualitative in nature. Regardless, further research must be
done to explore gender differences in regards to the provision
of real-time objective feedback.
This research may be useful for designers of technology
for use within sports science and the healthcare industry.
Providing real-time objective feedback on performance
appears to not only improve physical performance, but it also
seems to positively impact various psychological measures
including motivation, competitiveness, and mood.
These findings may also be relevant to recreational
exercisers as well as providers of fitness facilities.
Technology that provides objective strength training
feedback in real-time is becoming more readily available to
consumers, and health and leisure facilities may be able to
better meet users’ needs by providing gym equipment that
incorporates technology like this. Indeed, less sophisticated
examples of this technology (e.g., Technogym’s IsoControl;
Technogym, Gambettola, Italy) can already be used in some
recreational fitness centers. The current study may provide
the first empirical support for certain claims that
manufacturers are making regarding the usefulness of
providing real-time feedback during strength exercises, for
example, that presenting users with real-time feedback on
velocity increases the motivation levels of users.
Providing immediate quantitative performance feedback
appears to increase users’ motivation, competitiveness,
mood, and performance. Future research should address
whether this type of feedback can thereby improve exercise
adherence and ultimately enhance physical outcomes.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. A., & Carnagey, N. L. (2009). Causal effects of
violent sports video games on aggression: Is it
competitiveness or violent content?. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 731-739.
Argus, C. K., Gill, N. D., Keogh, J. W., & Hopkins, W. G.
(2011). Acute effects of verbal feedback on upper-body
performance in elite athletes. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 25(12), 3282-3287.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2017 Annual Meeting
Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (2008). Essentials of strength
training and conditioning. Human Kinetics Champaign.
Behm, D. G., & Sale, D. G. (1993). Intended rather than
actual movement velocity determines velocity-specific
training response. Journal of Applied Physiology, 74,
359-368.
Borg, G. A. V. (1982). Psychophysical bases of perceived
exertion. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
14, 377-381.
Carlson, A. J., Bennett, G., & Metcalf, J. (1992). The effect
of visual feedback in isokinetic testing. Isokinetics and
Exercise Science, 2(2), 60-64.
Cox, R. J., & Matyas, T. A. (1983). Myoelectric and force
feedback in the facilitation of isometric strength training:
a controlled comparison. Psychophysiology, 20, 35-44.
Croce, R. V. (1986). The effects of EMG biofeedback on
strength acquisition. Biofeedback and Self-regulation,
11(4), 299-310.
Darrall-Jones, J. D., Jones, B., & Till, K. (2015).
Anthropometric and physical profiles of English academy
rugby union players. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 29(8), 2086-2096.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum
Press.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.),
Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Friedrich, M., Gittler, G., Halberstadt, Y., Cermak, T., &
Heiller, I. (1998). Combined exercise and motivation
program: effect on the compliance and level of disability
of patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized
controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 79(5), 475-487.
Glazer, K. M., Emery, C. F., Frid, D. J., & Banyasz, R. E.
(2002). Psychological predictors of adherence and
outcomes among patients in cardiac rehabilitation.
Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and
Prevention, 22(1), 40-46.
González-Badillo, J. J., & Sánchez-Medina, L. (2010).
Movement velocity as a measure of loading intensity in
resistance training. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 31(5), 347-352.
Hagberg, L. A., Lindahl, B., Nyberg, L., & Hellénius, M. L.
(2009). Importance of enjoyment when promoting
physical exercise. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine &
Science in Sports, 19(5), 740-747.
Hart, S. G. & Staveland, L. E. (1988) Development of
NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and
theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati
(Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139-183).
Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
Hurley, B. F., & Kokkinos, P. F. (1987). Effects of weight
training on risk factors for coronary artery disease. Sports
Medicine, 4(4), 231-238.
View publication stats
1550
Izquierdo, M., González-Badillo, J. J., Häkkinen, K., Ibanez,
J., Kraemer, W. J., Altadill, A., Eslava, J., & Gorostiaga,
E. (2006). Effect of loading on unintentional lifting
velocity declines during single sets of repetitions to
failure during upper and lower extremity muscle actions.
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 27(09), 718-
724.
Maclean, N., Pound, P., Wolfe, C., & Rudd, A. (2000).
Qualitative analysis of stroke patients' motivation for
rehabilitation. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
321(7268), 1051-1054.
Matthews, G., Joyner, L., Gilliland, K., Huggins, J., &
Falconer, S. (1999). Validation of a comprehensive stress
state questionnaire: Towards a state big three? In I.
Merville, I.J. Deary, F. DeFruyt, and F. Ostendorf (Eds.),
Personality psychology in Europe (vol. 7) pp. 335-350.
Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Pareja-Blanco, F., Rodríguez-Rosell, D., Sánchez-Medina,
L., Gorostiaga, E. M., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2014).
Effect of movement velocity during resistance training on
neuromuscular performance. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 35(11), 916-924.
Randell, A. D., Cronin, J. B., Keogh, J. W., Gill, N. D., &
Pedersen, M. C. (2011). Effect of instantaneous
performance feedback during 6 weeks of velocity-based
resistance training on sport-specific performance tests.
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25,
87-93.
Rieber, L. P. (1991). Animation, incidental learning, and
continuing motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83(3), 318-328.
Singh, G. (2016). The influence of velocity based resistance
training on neuromuscular strength and power
adaptations in semi-professional rugby union and
professional rugby league players (Doctoral dissertation).
Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.
Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Rafferty, L. A., Walker, G.
H., Baber, C., & Jenkins, D. (2013). Human Factors
Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design
(2nd ed.). Ashgate, UK: Aldershot.
Stineman, M. G., Strumpf, N., Kurichi, J. E., Charles, J.,
Grisso, J. A., & Jayadevappa, R. (2011). Attempts to
reach the oldest and frailest: recruitment, adherence, and
retention of urban elderly persons to a falls reduction
exercise program. The Gerontologist, 51, 59-72.
Young, M. S., & Stanton, N. A. (2002). Malleable attentional
resources theory: a new explanation for the effects of
mental underload on performance. Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
44(3), 365-375.
Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the causal effects of
perceived competence on intrinsic motivation: A test of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology,
6(1), 94-102.
Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1988). On the relative effects of
positive and negative verbal feedback on males' and
females' intrinsic motivation. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 20(3), 239-250.