These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Feedback control of heart rate during treadmill exercise based on a two-phase response model.
    Author: Wang H, Hunt KJ.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2023; 18(10):e0292310. PubMed ID: 37871010.
    Abstract:
    This work investigated automatic control of heart rate during treadmill exercise. The aim was to theoretically derive a generic feedback design strategy that achieves a constant input sensitivity function for linear, time-invariant plant models, and to empirically test whether a compensator C2 based on a second-order model is more dynamic and has better tracking accuracy than a compensator C1 based on a first-order model. Twenty-three healthy participants were tested using first and second order compensators, C1 and C2, respectively, during 35-minute bouts of constant heart rate treadmill running. It was found that compensator C2 was significantly more accurate, i.e. it had 7% lower mean root-mean-square tracking error (1.98 vs. 2.13 beats per minute, p = 0.026), and significantly more dynamic, i.e. it had 17% higher mean average control signal power (23.4 × 10-4 m2/s2 vs. 20.0 × 10-4 m2/s2, p = 0.011), than C1. This improvement likely stems from the substantially and significantly better fidelity of second-order models, compared to first order models, in line with classical descriptions of the different phases of the cardiac response to exercise. These outcomes, achieved using a treadmill, are consistent with previous observations for the cycle ergometer exercise modality. In summary, whenever heart rate tracking accuracy is of primary importance and a more dynamic control signal is acceptable, the use of a compensator based on a second-order nominal model is recommended.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]