REF-396 · Bayne F, Racinais S, Mileva K, Hunter S & Gaoua N, 2020 · Frontiers in Psychology, · Paper · PubMed
Less is more — Cyclists-triathletes' 30 min cycling time-trial performance is impaired with multiple feedback compared to a single feedback
Participants
n=20: 10 cyclists-triathletes (CT) and 10 non-cyclists (NC).
Protocol
Two 30-min self-paced cycling time trials per participant, about 5-7 days apart
Single feedback: elapsed time only
Multiple feedback: power output, elapsed distance, elapsed time, cadence, speed, heart rate
Eye tracker monitored cyclists-triathletes' information acquisition during the multiple-feedback trial
Task motivation, RPE and affect every 5 min; power, cadence, distance, speed and heart rate recorded continuously
Key Results
Cyclists-triathletes with single feedback: 287.9 ± 60.07 W
Cyclists-triathletes with multiple feedback: 227.99 ± 42.02 W (p < 0.05) — about 60 W, or about 21%, lower (arithmetic on the abstract's means)
The impairment came despite a similar pacing strategy and similar perceptual responses (motivation, RPE, affect; p > 0.05) in the two conditions
Non-cyclists: no difference between multiple (137.27 ± 27.63 W) and single feedback (131.13 ± 25.53 W); cyclists-triathletes out-powered non-cyclists in both
Eye tracking: primary and secondary objects of regard were power (64.95 s) and elapsed time (64.46 s); total glance time fell from 75.67 s in the first 5 min to 22.34 s in the last 5 min
Authors' conclusion: overloading athletes with feedback may decrease performance in cyclists-triathletes; they glanced mostly at power and time, matching the sensors they train with
Mechanism
Inference, not tested: processing six data streams while riding is a dual task; the cost may be attentional or motivational rather than physiological, since RPE and pacing did not differ. The authors did not measure mental fatigue. Non-cyclists did not respond to the extra data — consistent with them not using such displays in training, though the study does not test why.
Practical Application
Ten trained cyclists-triathletes averaged 287.9 W over a 30-min time trial when the screen showed only elapsed time, and 227.99 W when it showed power, distance, time, cadence, speed and heart rate at once — about 60 W (21%) less, with the same pacing pattern and the same RPE. Non-cyclists were unaffected. A crowded head unit cost trained riders power without them feeling it.
Experienced cyclists should minimise data fields during time trials and racing — a single metric outperformed six simultaneous ones in this study
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: a race screen with one or two fields, not six or more
Eye tracking showed riders looked at the screen far less in the last 5 min (22.34 s vs 75.67 s in the first 5 min) — the display matters most early; late in the effort the body takes over
Caveat: one 30-min lab time trial in 10 athletes; the size of the drop should be treated as a signal, not a coefficient
Limitations
30-min TT — not race-length effort
Lab setting
Small sample (10 per group); large between-condition variance
Within-subject for the feedback comparison, between-groups for CT vs NC
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from A-: crossover with 10 cyclists-triathletes and 10 non-cyclists
Content correction 2026-09-27
"Feedback viewing declined from 25.2% (first 5 min) to 3.3% (final 5 min)" -> the abstract gives 75.67 s and 22.34 s of glance time; 22.34 s of 5 min is ~7%, not 3.3%. Replaced with the abstract's seconds.
"CT distance: 8.7 km (single) vs 8.1 km (multiple)" and "eye-tracking in a subset (n=6 CT)" -> not in the abstract; removed.
"Mental fatigue from dual-task demands ... diverts neural resources" -> not measured; the abstract reports similar pacing and perceptual responses; relabelled as inference.
Level A- -> B (crossover with 10 per group).
Cross-reference labels pointed at the wrong entry or named the wrong author (checked against each cited entry's byline); repointed to the entry the label describes, or removed where the base holds no such paper.