1. Effects of Music and Feedback on Psychophysiological Responses to Running Jasmin Hutchinson, Ph.D. Springfield College, Springfield, MA. Contact Email: jhutchinson@springfieldcollege.edujhutchinson@springfieldcollege.edu Note: No funding for this research was provided by Nike or Apple Inc. References Borg, G. (1998). Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hardy, C.J., & Rejeski, W.J. (1989). Not what, but how one feels: The measurement of affect during exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 304-317. Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (1997). The psychophysical effects of music in sport and exercise: A review. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(1), 54-68. Oliver, N., & Kreger-Stickles, L. (2006). Enhancing exercise performance through real- time physiological monitoring and music: A user study. Pervasive Health Conference and Workshops (First International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare) (IEEE Cat No. 06EX1728), 122-31. Svebak, S., & Murgatroyd, S. (1985). Metamotivational dominance: A multimethod validation of reversal theory constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 107–116. Pujol, T., & Langenfeld, A. (1999). Influences of music on Wingate anaerobic test performance. Perceptual Motor Skills, 88(1), 292–296. Method Thirteen recreationally active male and female participants (M age = 23.53, SD = 4.53) volunteered for the study. Participants completed four 2-mile runs under different conditions using the Nike+ iPod system: 1.Music and feedback (MF) 2.Music only (MO) 3.Feedback only (FO) 4.Control – no music or feedback (C) Introduction Research evidence suggests that appropriately selected music can influence a range of dependent variables during exercise. The most consistent finding seems to be that exercise endurance, performance perception and perceived exertion levels are positively influenced by music versus non- music conditions (Pujol & Langenfeld, 1999). The proposed mechanisms through which music produces psychophysical benefits include lowered perceived effort, arousal control, improved affective states, and a synchronization effect (Karageorghis & Terry, 1997). Recent technologies allow runners to conveniently tap into the psychophysical effects of music and performance feedback during exercise. One such advance is the Nike + iPod ® sports kit. The Nike + system combines music, delivered via an iPod, with real time performance feedback. A sensor, worn in the running shoe, and is coupled with a receiver that attaches to the iPod. The sensor uses an accelerometer to track running activity and wirelessly transmits that data to the receiver. The receiver then transmits verbal feedback to the runner concerning current time, current pace, and total distance travelled. Performance feedback is known to be an effective strategy to improve athletic performance and motivation. Research has also shown that performance feedback can lead to superior running performances (Oliver & Kreger-Stickles, 2006). Thus the Nike + iPod system represents an interesting device in that it combines two supposed performance enhancing applications: music and performance feedback. Objective: To assess the combined and independent effects of music and feedback on running performance and feelings experienced during exercise. Hypotheses: A combination of music plus feedback will be associated with enhanced running performance. Running while listening to music will be associated with lower perceived exertion, higher arousal, and more positive affect and than running without music. For the music conditions participants selected their own preferred music. Music was played through an Apple ® iPod Nano and personal headphones supplied by the experimenter. The iPod was fitted with a Nike + iPod sports kit, which provided the participant with verbal feedback during the run regarding pace, distance and time. Distance feedback was automatically provided at half-mile intervals, with a countdown in 100m intervals from 400m until the end of the 2-mile run. Participants could request additional feedback at any stage of the run by pressing a button on the iPod. Each 2-mile run was completed on a motorized treadmill (Marquette T2000, location) and participants were instructed to run at their preferred pace. Prior to the first run participants completed a brief familiarization session on the treadmill, during which time the Nike + iPod system was calibrated to their running stride. This familiarization session entailed a 400m run at a comfortable pace. Each test run was completed under laboratory conditions at the same time of day, and runs were all 48 hours apart. The order of the four running conditions was counterbalanced among subjects. Participants were not able to view the display panel of the treadmill during testing, but were able to adjust the treadmill speed at will. At ½ mile intervals during the run, including the end of the run, participants rated the following:  Perceived Exertion was measured using a 10-point Ratings of Perceived Exertion scale (Borg, 1998)  Affective Valance was measured using the Feeling Scale (FS: Hardy & Rejeski, 1989). The feeling scale measures affect on an 11-point scale; from very good (5) through neutral (0) to very bad (-5).  Perceived Activation/Arousal was measured using the Felt Arousal Scale (FAS; Svebak & Murgatroyd, 1985) which is a 6-point scale ranging from low arousal (1), to high arousal (6). Immediately after the run the participants also rated their perceived enjoyment of the run and the perceived usefulness of the run for their training purposes on a 0-10 likert scale. The FS and FAS were also administered 10 min post-run. Running pace (min per mile) was used as a measure of performance. Data were analyzed in SPSS 15.0 using separate repeated measures ANOVAs When examined across all conditions, arousal shows significant positive quadratic curvature over time F (1, 12) = 27.80, p <.00, η 2 =.70; while affective valance demonstrates a significant negative quadratic trend over time, F (3, 36) = 15.73, p <.00, η 2 =.57. Conclusions As expected, and consistent with other research in the area, participants reported more positive affect and increased arousal in the conditions where music was present compared to control conditions. Interestingly, performance feedback had virtually the same effect as music when it came to arousal and affect. The presence of music had the greatest positive effect on the perceived usefulness of the run, regardless of the presence of feedback, although feedback was percieved as more useful than none. Regarding enjoyment of the run, music plus feedback was preferred, but feedback alone was as strong a factor as music alone. These findings point to a potentially important role of real-time performance feedback on various psychological factors experienced during running. These findings also support the arousal control and improved affective valance theories of the psychophysical effect of music on performance (see Karageorghis & Terry, 1997). The argument for reduced percieved exertion was not supported, but given that intensity was not standarized across conditions (indeed, particpants were working harder with music) this is unsurprising. Running performance was superior in the music plus feedback condition, followed by the music only condition. This is consistent with other research that indicates that music has a positive influence on running performance. The addition of coincident performance feedback appears to enhance this effect. While these results fell just short of statistical significance (p =.06), a difference in running time from 8:55 min per mile (C) to 8:17 min per mile (MF) would likely be of high practical significance to a runner. Further research examining the effect is warranted. Particularly, one might want to pay attention to task motivation as a factor that is influenced by both music and performance feedback. Results Results indicated significant differences between the four running conditions for affective valance, F (3, 36) = 3.01, p <.05, η 2 =.23; perceived arousal, F (3, 36) = 5.22, p <.01, η 2 =.30; usefulness of the run, F (3, 36) = 12.12, p <.00, η 2 =.50; and enjoyment of the run, F (3, 36) = 10.04, p <.00, η 2 =.46. Perceived exertion did not differ significantly between the four running conditions (p =.35). Performance (i.e. running pace), did not reach statistical significance, but a trend (p =.06) in the expected direction was observed.