The Validity and Reliability of a Tire Pressure-Based Power Meter for Indoor Cycling

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of a tire pressure sensor (TPS) cycling power meter against a gold standard (SRM) during indoor cycling. Twelve recreationally active participants completed eight trials of 90 s of cycling at different pedaling and gearing combin...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nicholas J. Fiolo, Hai-Ying Lu, Chia-Hsiang Chen, Philip X. Fuchs, Wei-Han Chen, Tzyy-Yuang Shiang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-09-01
Series:Sensors
Subjects:
SRM
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/18/6117
id doaj-1f5089a56baa44d5849c5ee85305aef7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1f5089a56baa44d5849c5ee85305aef72021-09-26T01:22:46ZengMDPI AGSensors1424-82202021-09-01216117611710.3390/s21186117The Validity and Reliability of a Tire Pressure-Based Power Meter for Indoor CyclingNicholas J. Fiolo0Hai-Ying Lu1Chia-Hsiang Chen2Philip X. Fuchs3Wei-Han Chen4Tzyy-Yuang Shiang5Department of Athletic Performance, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 106, TaiwanDepartment of Athletic Performance, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 106, TaiwanOffice of Physical Education, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung 912, TaiwanDepartment of Athletic Performance, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 106, TaiwanDepartment of Athletic Performance, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 106, TaiwanDepartment of Athletic Performance, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 106, TaiwanThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of a tire pressure sensor (TPS) cycling power meter against a gold standard (SRM) during indoor cycling. Twelve recreationally active participants completed eight trials of 90 s of cycling at different pedaling and gearing combinations on an indoor hybrid roller. Power output (PO) was simultaneously calculated via TPS and SRM. The analysis compared the paired 1 s PO and 1 min average PO per trial between devices. Agreement was assessed by correlation, linear regression, inferential statistics, effect size, and Bland–Altman LoA. Reliability was assessed by ICC and CV comparison. TPS showed near-perfect correlation with SRM in 1 s (<i>r</i><sub>s</sub> = 0.97, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and 1-min data (<i>r</i><sub>s</sub> = 0.99, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Differences in paired 1 s data were statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.04), but of a trivial magnitude (<i>d</i> = 0.05). There was no significant main effect for device (F(1,9) = 0.05, <i>p</i> = 0.83, <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="sans-serif">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> = 0.97) in 1 min data and no statistical differences between devices by trial in post hoc analysis (<i>p</i> < 0.01–0.98; <i>d</i> < 0.01–0.93). Bias and LoA were −0.21 ± 16.77 W for the 1 min data. Mean TPS bias ranged from 3.37% to 7.81% of the measured SRM mean PO per trial. Linear regression SEE was 7.55 W for 1 min TPS prediction of SRM. ICC<sub>3,1</sub> across trials was 0.96. No statistical difference (<i>p</i> = 0.09–0.11) in TPS CV (3.6–5.0%) and SRM CV (4.3–4.7%). The TPS is a valid and reliable power meter for estimating average indoor PO for time periods equal to or greater than 1 min and may have acceptable sensitivity to detect changes under less stringent criteria (±5%).https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/18/6117SRMcycling technologyvalidationtire pressor sensor
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nicholas J. Fiolo
Hai-Ying Lu
Chia-Hsiang Chen
Philip X. Fuchs
Wei-Han Chen
Tzyy-Yuang Shiang
spellingShingle Nicholas J. Fiolo
Hai-Ying Lu
Chia-Hsiang Chen
Philip X. Fuchs
Wei-Han Chen
Tzyy-Yuang Shiang
The Validity and Reliability of a Tire Pressure-Based Power Meter for Indoor Cycling
Sensors
SRM
cycling technology
validation
tire pressor sensor
author_facet Nicholas J. Fiolo
Hai-Ying Lu
Chia-Hsiang Chen
Philip X. Fuchs
Wei-Han Chen
Tzyy-Yuang Shiang
author_sort Nicholas J. Fiolo
title The Validity and Reliability of a Tire Pressure-Based Power Meter for Indoor Cycling
title_short The Validity and Reliability of a Tire Pressure-Based Power Meter for Indoor Cycling
title_full The Validity and Reliability of a Tire Pressure-Based Power Meter for Indoor Cycling
title_fullStr The Validity and Reliability of a Tire Pressure-Based Power Meter for Indoor Cycling
title_full_unstemmed The Validity and Reliability of a Tire Pressure-Based Power Meter for Indoor Cycling
title_sort validity and reliability of a tire pressure-based power meter for indoor cycling
publisher MDPI AG
series Sensors
issn 1424-8220
publishDate 2021-09-01
description The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of a tire pressure sensor (TPS) cycling power meter against a gold standard (SRM) during indoor cycling. Twelve recreationally active participants completed eight trials of 90 s of cycling at different pedaling and gearing combinations on an indoor hybrid roller. Power output (PO) was simultaneously calculated via TPS and SRM. The analysis compared the paired 1 s PO and 1 min average PO per trial between devices. Agreement was assessed by correlation, linear regression, inferential statistics, effect size, and Bland–Altman LoA. Reliability was assessed by ICC and CV comparison. TPS showed near-perfect correlation with SRM in 1 s (<i>r</i><sub>s</sub> = 0.97, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and 1-min data (<i>r</i><sub>s</sub> = 0.99, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Differences in paired 1 s data were statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.04), but of a trivial magnitude (<i>d</i> = 0.05). There was no significant main effect for device (F(1,9) = 0.05, <i>p</i> = 0.83, <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="sans-serif">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> = 0.97) in 1 min data and no statistical differences between devices by trial in post hoc analysis (<i>p</i> < 0.01–0.98; <i>d</i> < 0.01–0.93). Bias and LoA were −0.21 ± 16.77 W for the 1 min data. Mean TPS bias ranged from 3.37% to 7.81% of the measured SRM mean PO per trial. Linear regression SEE was 7.55 W for 1 min TPS prediction of SRM. ICC<sub>3,1</sub> across trials was 0.96. No statistical difference (<i>p</i> = 0.09–0.11) in TPS CV (3.6–5.0%) and SRM CV (4.3–4.7%). The TPS is a valid and reliable power meter for estimating average indoor PO for time periods equal to or greater than 1 min and may have acceptable sensitivity to detect changes under less stringent criteria (±5%).
topic SRM
cycling technology
validation
tire pressor sensor
url https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/18/6117
work_keys_str_mv AT nicholasjfiolo thevalidityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT haiyinglu thevalidityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT chiahsiangchen thevalidityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT philipxfuchs thevalidityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT weihanchen thevalidityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT tzyyyuangshiang thevalidityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT nicholasjfiolo validityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT haiyinglu validityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT chiahsiangchen validityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT philipxfuchs validityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT weihanchen validityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
AT tzyyyuangshiang validityandreliabilityofatirepressurebasedpowermeterforindoorcycling
_version_ 1716869050933444608