Characteristics impacting on session rating of perceived exertion training load in Australian footballers

The relationship between external training load and session rating of perceived exertion (s-RPE) training load and the impact that playing experience, playing position and 2-km time-trial performance had on s-RPE training load were explored. From 39 Australian Football players, 6.9 ± 4.6 training sessions were analysed, resulting in 270 samples. Microtechnology devices provided external training load (distance, average speed, high-speed running distance, player load (PL) and player load_slow (PL_slow)). The external training load measures had moderate to very large associations (r, 95% CI) with s-RPE training load, average speed (0.45, 0.35–0.54), high-speed running distance (0.51, 0.42–0.59), PL_slow (0.80, 0.75–0.84), PL (0.86, 0.83–0.89) and distance (0.88, 0.85–0.90). Differences were described using effect sizes (d ±95% CL). When controlling for external training load, the 4- to 5-year players had higher s-RPE training load than the 0- to 1- (0.44 ± 0.33) and 2- to 3-year players (0.51 ± 0.30), ruckmen had moderately higher s-RPE training load than midfielders (0.82 ± 0.58), and there was a 0.2% increase in s-RPE training load per 1 s increase in time-trial (95% CI: 0.07–0.34). Experience, position and time-trial performance impacted the relationship between external training load and s-RPE training load. This suggests that a given external training load may result in different internal responses between athletes, potentially leaving individuals at risk of overtraining or failing to elicit positive adaptation. It is therefore vital that coaches and trainers give consideration to these mediators of s-RPE training load.     

Multiple determinants of transfer of evaluative function after conditioning with free-operant schedules of reinforcement

The aim of the four present experiments was to explore how different schedules of reinforcement influence schedule-induced behavior, their impact on evaluative ratings given to conditioned stimuli associated with each schedule through evaluative conditioning, and the transfer of these evaluations through derived stimulus networks. Experiment 1 compared two contrasting response reinforcement rules (variable ratio [VR], variable interval [VI]). Experiment 2 varied the response to reinforcement rule between two schedules but equated the outcome to response rate (differential reinforcement of high rate [DRH] vs. VR). Experiment 3 compared molar and molecular aspects of contingencies of reinforcement (tandem VIVR vs. tandem VRVI). Finally, Experiment 4 employed schedules that induced low rates of responding to determine whether, under these circumstances, responses were more sensitive to the molecular aspects of a schedule (differential reinforcement of low rate [DRL] vs. VI). The findings suggest that the transfer of evaluative functions is determined mainly by differences in response rate between the schedules and the molar aspects of the schedules. However, when neither schedule was based on a strong response reinforcement rule, the transfer of evaluative judgments came under the control of the molecular aspects of the schedule.     

Effect of required response force on rats’ performance on a VI+ schedule of reinforcement

Three experiments were performed to examine the effect of response force on rats’ performance on various schedules of reinforcement. Response force was manipulated by changing the weight of the lever in the operant chamber—a heavy lever for high response force and a light lever for low response force. Using a within-subjects design, Experiment 1 replicated previous findings that rats respond more quickly on variable ratio (VR) than on equivalent variable-interval-plus-linear-feedback (VI+) schedules. Experiment 2 replicated this finding but also showed that the use of a smaller response force abolished the response rate difference between the VR and VI+ schedules. Experiment 3 used a between-subjects design and showed a response rate difference between the VR and VI+ schedules with a high response force but no response rate difference with a low response force. This suggests that under conditions of low force, when the rats’ responding can continue at prolonged high rates, these subjects show little difference in their response rates between VR and VI+ schedules. These data are similar to those found for human subjects.     

Wearable devices and healthcare: Data sharing and privacy

Wearable devices introduce many new capabilities to the delivery of healthcare. But wearables also pose grave privacy risks. Furthermore, information overload gets in the way of informed consent by the patient. To better protect American patients in an increasingly digital world, the U.S. Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). This article examines the adequacy of HIPAA vis-à-vis issues raised by wearable technologies in the Internet of Things environment and identifies policy gaps and factors that drive health data exposure. It presents a 2 × 2 Partnership-Identity Exposure Matrix, illustrates implications in four different contexts, and provides recommendations for improving privacy protection.     

Retention period differentially attenuates win–shift/lose–stay relative to win–stay/lose–shift performance in the rat

Hungry rats were trained in a two-lever conditioning chamber to earn food reinforcement according to either a win–shift/lose–stay or a win–stay/lose–shift contingency. Performance on the two contingencies was similar when there was little delay between the initial, information part of the trial (i.e., win or lose) and the choice portion of the trial (i.e., stay or shift with respect to the lever presented in the information stage). However, when a delay between the information and choice portions of the trial was introduced, subjects experiencing the win–shift/lose–stay contingency performed worse than subjects experiencing the alternative contingency. In particular, the lose–stay rule was differentially negatively impacted relative to the other rules. This result is difficult for ecological or response interference accounts to explain.