REF-248 · Marrone et al., 2025 · Sensors, Vol. · Paper

Method for Assessing Numbness and Discomfort in Cyclists' Hands

Cweak evidence: opinion or lab dataMeasured on a mixed groupWritten before October 2026, being re-checked

Participants

n=10 male volunteers; two one-hour cycling sessions each, one per handlebar design tested.

Protocol

A road bike's rear wheel ran on an indoor smart trainer while its front wheel sat on a vibrating platform to mimic road input. Before and after every session, vibrotactile perception threshold (VPT) was tested at 8 and 31.5 Hz on the right hand's index and little fingers; at the end of each session riders rated discomfort across hand regions on a unipolar questionnaire. The abstract does not state the trainer mode or power output used.

Key Results

Discomfort scores showed strong inter-subject variability — the authors conclude they must be combined with the objective VPT measurement.
VPT was sensitive to the perception shift caused by vibration exposure and to differences between fingers.
The paper's claim is that the setup and processing method work for assessing hand numbness and discomfort in cyclists; it reports no result on trainer mode or power control.

Practical Application

Marrone et al. 2025 (Sensors): a lab method — road bike on a smart trainer, front wheel on a vibrating platform — validated in 10 male volunteers over two 1-h sessions with two handlebars: finger vibrotactile thresholds at 8 and 31.5 Hz shifted with vibration exposure and differed between fingers, while subjective discomfort varied too much between people to stand alone — a measurement method for hand numbness, not a training study.
No implications for ERG vs non-ERG training — the abstract does not describe the trainer mode or power; the entry's earlier "ERG held 110 W" claim is not in the abstract.
Inference, not tested: for riders with hand numbness, the method's lesson is that subjective ratings alone are unreliable — objective testing (or at least handlebar/glove trials with a fixed protocol) is needed to compare setups.

Limitations

Methodological paper only; n=10 males, training status not stated. Not designed to assess training adaptations. Laboratory setup only; vibration from a platform, not a road. Trainer mode and power not given in the abstract.

How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level

(methodological paper, not training study)

Content correction 2026-09-27
Removed "ERG mode at 110 W constant" and "ERG mode successfully maintained constant 110 W regardless of cadence" -> not in the abstract, which does not mention the trainer mode or power at all.
Key Results now the paper's actual findings (VPT sensitivity at 8 and 31.5 Hz, inter-subject variability of discomfort scores); added n=10 male volunteers, two 1-h sessions, two handlebar designs.
Lead Practical bullet said "ERG as laboratory tool" -> now describes the method and its validation result.