Search

Guidance to maintain an optimal aerodynamic position is currently unavailable during cycling. This study used real-time vibrotactile feedback to guide cyclists to a reference position with minimal projected frontal area as an indicator of aerodynamic drag, by optimizing torso, shoulder, head and elbow position without compromising comfort when sitting still on the bike. The difference in recapturing the aerodynamic reference position during cycling after predefined deviations from the reference position at different intensities was analysed for 14 participants between three interventions, consisting of 1) vibrotactile feedback with a margin of error of 1.5% above the calibrated reference projected frontal area, 2) vibrotactile feedback with a margin of 3%, and 3) no feedback. The reference position is significantly more accurately achieved using vibrotactile feedback compared to no feedback (p < 0.001), but there is no significant difference between the 1.5% and 3% margin (p = 0.11) in terms of relative projected frontal area during cycling compared to the calibrated reference position (1.5% margin −0.46 ± 1.76%, 3% margin −0.01 ± 2.01%, no feedback 2.59 ± 3.29%). The results demonstrate that vibrotactile feedback can have an added value in assisting and correcting cyclists in recapturing their aerodynamic reference position. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to investigate the perception of vibrotactile signals during physical exercise by comparing differences in recognition between stationary and cycling positions. The impact of physical exercise on the ability to perceive vibrotactile cues is unknown, whereas the recognition in stationary position has been shown previously. Vibrating elements were positioned at 3 locations on the thighs and spine of 9 athletes to apply various vibrotactile cues. Subjects performed at 0, 50, 70 and 90% of their maximal cycling power output and denoted the interpretation of the vibration signals on a touchscreen. The results show a similarity in correct recognition between stationary position and physical exercise for the thighs and spine (p>0.1) and demonstrate a decrease in response time for 70 and 90% levels of physical exercise compared to 0 and 50% (p<0.001). Furthermore, vibrotactile signals at the spine are noticed more accurately and more rapidly compared to the thighs (p<0.01). These results suggest that vibrotactile feedback also has potential in applications during physical exercise. The potential use of vibrotactile feedback can be in cycling for, among other, correcting the aerodynamic position. Applications in other sports and health-related domains are feasible as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]