Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 532

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perception of effort during exercise is independent of afferent feedback from skeletal muscles, heart, and lungs

Marcora, Samuele·2009·Journal of Applied Physiology

Abstract

VIEWPOINTPerception of effort during exercise is independent of afferent feedback from skeletal muscles, heart, and lungsSamuele MarcoraSamuele MarcoraPublished Online:01 Jun 2009https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.90378.2008This is the final version - click for previous versionMoreSectionsPDF (55 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations perception of effort, also known as perceived exertion or sense of effort, is a major feature of fatigue (7), and it is widely used to monitor and prescribe exercise intensity (18). However, despite its importance, the neurophysiological bases of this atypical sensation are poorly understood. A model popular among physiologists investigating central regulation of exercise performance is that perceived exertion results from the complex integration of different inputs to the central nervous system (CNS). These inputs include afferent feedback from the peripheral organs most active during aerobic exercise (i.e., skeletal muscles, heart, and lungs) and other interoceptors, with or without additional inputs from the CNS itself, such as knowledge of the exercise task endpoint (3, 6, 28).The purpose of this article is to challenge this view by reviewing evidence that perception of effort during dynamic whole body exercise is independent of afferent feedback from small-diameter muscle afferents, heart, and lungs. For isolated and/or isometric exercise, the reader is referred to other reviews demonstrating that the sense of effort is independent of sensory inputs from muscle spindles and Golgi tendon organs (15, 24).Definitions.The common assumption that afferent feedback contributes significantly to perception of effort may derive from a too broad operational definition. Indeed, if subjects are instructed that rating of perceived exertion (RPE) refers to the discomfort experienced during exercise, then muscle pain, thermal discomfort, and thirst can be appropriately included in the perceptual rating because hedonicity is one of the four dimensions of any sensation (quality, intensity, duration, and hedonicity) (3). However, these and other unpleasant sensations experienced during exercise have their own specific neurophysiological mechanisms and verbal descriptors (i.e., quality) and can be differentiated from perception of effort (e.g., Ref. 19). Therefore, we believe that a narrower definition of exertion as “the effort expended in performing a physical activity” (Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science and Medicine) is physiologically more appropriate. Furthermore, this definition is in line with the verbal descriptors chosen by Borg for his RPE scale (“heavy/hard” and “light/easy”) (18) rather than ratings of hedonicity (“pleasant/unpleasant,” “feeling good/feeling bad,” “comfortable/uncomfortable”) (3).Perceived exertion and afferent feedback from skeletal muscles.Skeletal muscles are richly innervated by group III and IV fibers that provide afferent feedback related to metabolic, ionic, thermal, and mechanical stress (12). These small-diameter afferent fibers project, through lamina I neurons, to various spinal and supraspinal sites including the sensory cortex (5). Given the existence of such sensory system and the well-known increases in muscle metabolic by-products, potassium, temperature, and mechanical stress during intense exercise (12), it seems logical to assume that perception of effort is based on these afferent stimuli (Fig. 1A). Furthermore, there are high correlations between markers of metabolic stress (e.g., blood lactate concentration and %V̇o2max) with RPE during incremental exercise (18). However, the presence of the sensory machinery and a high correlation between the proposed metabolic stimuli and perceived exertion does not necessarily mean that the two are causally related. Indeed, several experimental studies in which perception of effort and metabolic stress have been dissociated argue against such common assumption.Fig. 1.Simplified afferent feedback (A) and corollary discharge (B) models of perceived exertion.Download figureDownload PowerPointFor example, when skeletal muscle weakness is induced by a small dose of curare (a drug that blocks transmission at the neuromuscular junction without affecting afferent pathways) there is a significant increase in RPE during cycling exercise (9). In theory, recruitment of glycolytic fibers due to the selective effect of curare on oxidative fibers may increase metabolic stimuli and perception of effort. However, the small increase in blood lactate concentration (0.36 mM) compared with the disproportionate increase in perceived exertion (4.8 points on Borg's 15-point RPE scale) argue against this hypothesis. Similarly, changes in afferent feedback from prefatigued locomotor muscles cannot explain the significant increase in perceived exertion we measured during a high-intensity cycling test (14). Indeed, we induced a significant reduction in locomotor muscle force using an e

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/japplphysiol.90378.2008

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Marcora, S.
Venue
Journal of Applied Physiology
Published
2009-06
Volume
106
Issue
6
Pages
2060-2062
ISSN
  • 0161-7567 (ISSN-L)
  • 8750-7587
  • 1522-1601
OpenAlex
W2126718722
Cited by
532
References
2
FWCI
38.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.