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...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-09-01
|
Series: | Sensors |
Subjects: | |
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 |