Effects of Previous Performance Beliefs on Perceptual Responses and Performance in 16.1 km Cycling Time Trials Jones H.S.1, Williams E.L., Marchant D., S Sparks A., Bridge C.A., Midgley A.W. and Mc Naughton L.R. 1 Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Leeds, UK, LS2 9JT Introduction Appraisals of previous experiences are a key determinant of pacing strategies in future performances (Micklewright et al., 2010; Mauger at al., 2009), and subsequent perceptions of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and effort tolerance (Hutchinson et al., 2008). The manipulation of an athlete’s beliefs regarding his/her previous performance achievements can therefore explore the importance of these beliefs on overall performance and perceptual responses. If beliefs are enhanced and athletes are empowered to believe that they can perform faster than what they perceive they are capable of, it may be hypothesised that future performance could be improved and perceptual experiences enhanced. Aim: This study aimed to examine the importance of previous performance beliefs on affect, self-efficacy, RPE and performance in 16.1 km self-paced cycling time trials (TT). Methods Seventeen trained male cyclists (mean + SD, age = 35.5 ± 6.3 years; height = 179.3 ± 4.9 cm; mass = 78.3 ± 5.7 kg; VO2peak = 53.7 ± 5.2 mL.kg.min-1) were assigned to a control (CON) or deception (DEC) group and performed four 16.1 km self-paced cycling TTs using a CompuTrainer Pro™ cycle ergometer. A virtual course was projected onto a screen in front of the cyclists, which depicted their speed profile as a virtual avatar during each TT. The fastest performance out of two ride-alone baseline TTs was classified as the cyclists’ fastest baseline (FBL). The cyclists performed the third TT (PACER) against a virtual avatar which represented 102% of their FBL speed profile, before completing a final ride-alone subsequent TT (SUB). The DEC group however, were initially informed that the avatar in PACER accurately represented their FBL, but prior to SUB were correctly informed of the nature of the pacer. Both power output and speed were significantly different between trials (P < 0.001), with PACER performed at a significantly higher power output and speed compared to both FBL and SUB (P < 0.001). An absence of any significant group x trial or group x quartile interactions suggests that pacing strategies were similar between the CON and DEC groups. Figure 3. Mean (SEM) power output across distance in 16.1 km time trials for the CON and DEC groups Affect was significantly lower in PACER than FBL (P = 0.016) and RPE was significantly higher in PACER than both FBL (P < 0.001) and SUB ( P = 0.014). Self-efficacy was significantly lower in PACER than FBL (P = 0.011) and SUB (P = 0.001). No interactions were found for affect, RPE or self-efficacy demonstrating that perceptual responses were similar between the CON and DEC groups. Heart rate was significantly higher in PACER than FBL (P = 0.017) and SUB (P = 0.002). Similarly, PACER values for VE were higher in PACER than both FBL (P = 0.012) and SUB (P < 0.001), and VO2 was higher in PACER than FBL (P = 0.033). For BLa, values were significantly higher in PACER than SUB (P = 0.003). Figure 1. Trial schematic of the research design Figure 2. Representation of the visual feedback provided in the PACER TT Only distance covered feedback was provided on-screen, with the avatar’s distance and the gap between riders additionally provided in PACER. Affect, RPE, self-efficacy, VO2, VE, RER and blood lactate (BLa) were measured every 4 km. Power output, speed and heart rate were continuously recorded but averaged for each 4 km segment. Statistical Analysis Linear mixed modelling was used to explore the effects of distance quartile (25, 50, 75, 100%), trial (FBL, PACER, SUB) and group (CON, DEC) on all repeated-measures dependent variables. Performance times and mean pre- to post-trial changes in BLa were analysed with fixed effects included for trial and group. Results Performance time was significantly faster in PACER than FBL (MD = -17 s; P = 0.042) and SUB (MD = -19 s; P = 0.027), but times in FBL and SUB were not significantly different (MD = 2 s; P = 0.99). A significant group x trial difference was not found (P = 0.49), therefore performance differences between trials were similar in both groups. Figure 4. Mean (SEM) affect (A), RPE (B) and self-efficacy (C) responses across distance in 16.1 km time trials for the CON and DEC groups Summary Findings demonstrate that the provision of previous performance feedback in 16.1 km cycling TTs improves performance regardless of the accuracy of this feedback The magnitude of the pacer rather than the manipulation of performance beliefs can therefore be attributed to the acute improvement in performance time, reduction in affect, and increases in RPE and self-efficacy . Revealing that athletes’ performance beliefs were falsely negative due to deceptive feedback provision has no effect on subsequent perceptions or performance. Future research should consider win/loss outcomes as a potential mediator of this feedback-performance relationship. Table 1. Mean (SD) performance times (min:s) for the CON and DEC groups   CON group DEC group FBL 26:31 (1:44) 26:40 (0:52) PACER 26:15* (1:31) 26:22* (0:44) SUB 26:40 (1:30) 26:34 (0:54) Correspondence details | Dr Hollie Jones | Email: h.jones2@leeds.ac.uk * Significantly faster than FBL and SUB