RUNNING EXPERIENCE AND PERFORMANCE Lim Ren Jie NIE 11 Cui Xinyu - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

running experience
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

RUNNING EXPERIENCE AND PERFORMANCE Lim Ren Jie NIE 11 Cui Xinyu - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

EFFECTS OF MUSIC ON RUNNING EXPERIENCE AND PERFORMANCE Lim Ren Jie NIE 11 Cui Xinyu Overview Introduction Aim and Objective Methodology Results and Discussion Conclusion Overview Introduction Aim and Objective Methodology Results


slide-1
SLIDE 1

EFFECTS OF MUSIC ON RUNNING EXPERIENCE AND PERFORMANCE

Lim Ren Jie Cui Xinyu NIE 11

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Overview

Introduction Methodology

Results and Discussion

Conclusion

Aim and Objective

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Introduction

Aim and Objective Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

Overview

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Introduction

14%

Decrease

Female < Male

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Introduction

Conditions of Music:

Synchronous Asynchronous No Music

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Overview

Introduction

Aim and Objective

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Aim and Objective

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Investigate on the effects of synchronous and asynchronous music on Junior College (JC) students’ experience and performance during 800m running.

Aim and Objective

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Aim and Objective

Adolescents can improve their exercising experience and performance tremendously with music application compared adolescents exercising without music. Synchronous music produces greater positive experiences and efficiency in running than asynchronous music. Application of music has a greater effect on females than male

Hypotheses

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Overview

Introduction Aim and Objective

Methodology

Results & Discussion

Conclusion

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Methedology

Participants

Preference Measurements

Lab Test

Data Collection

1 2 3 4

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Methodology

  • 10 Females, 9 Males
  • Aged 17-19
  • Mean age= 17.26, SD age= 0.56
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Methodology

Measurements conducted:

  • Music selection using Brunel Music Rating

Inventory-3 (BMRI-3)

  • Attentional Focus Questionnaire (AFQ)
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Methodology

  • Self-selected pace
  • 3 X 800m interval running, with 10min break in

between

  • No music condition first, followed by Asynchronous

Music and Synchronous Music in randomised order.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Methodology

4 measurements:

  • Heart Rate → Performance
  • Attentional Focus → Experience
  • Rate of Perceived Exertion → Experience
  • Subjective Enjoyment → Experience
slide-16
SLIDE 16

Overview

Introduction Aim and Objective Methodology Results & Discussion Conclusion

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Overview

Performance Experience

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Hypothesis 1

Performance: Experience:

Hypothesis 1 Music > No Music

:Data supports criteria :Data partially supports criteria :Data does not support criteria

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Hypothesis 1 Heart Rate Music condition Total M SD No music 183.95 9.34 Asynchronous music 191.00 8.49 Synchronous music 192.16 9.06

Hypothesis 1 Music > No Music

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Hypothesis 1

Participants get excited when listening to music High heart rate → high intensity

Reasons

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Hypothesis 1 Enjoyment (marginally significant)

Music condition Total M

SD

No music 3.71

1.22

Asynchronous music 4.21

1.06

Synchronous music 3.99

.80

Hypothesis 1 Music > No Music

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Hypothesis 1

Attentional Focus (marginally significant) Music condition Total M SD No music 4.47 2.57 Asynchronous music 5.53 2.27 Synchronous music 5.05 2.17

Hypothesis 1 Music > No Music

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Hypothesis 2

Performance: Experience:

Hypothesis 2

Synchronous Music > Asynchronous Music

:Data supports criteria :Data partially supports criteria :Data does not support criteria

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Hypothesis 2 We theorised that motivational factor is more important in affecting performance and experience than the tempo of music.

Hypothesis 2

Synchronous Music > Asynchronous Music

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Hypothesis 2

BMRI-3 ratings Music condition Total M SD Asynchronous music 36.21 3.45 Synchronous music 33.68 5.22

Hypothesis 2

Synchronous Music > Asynchronous Music

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Hypothesis 2

Enjoyment Music condition Total M SD Asynchronous music 4.21 1.06 Synchronous music 3.99 .80

Hypothesis 2

Synchronous Music > Asynchronous Music

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Hypothesis 2

Attentional Focus Music condition Total M SD Asynchronous music 5.53 2.27 Synchronous music 5.06 2.17

Hypothesis 2

Synchronous Music > Asynchronous Music

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Hypothesis 2

No pressure to follow beats of music Liking of a song matters more

Reasons

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Hypothesis 3

Performance: Experience:

Hypothesis 3

Effect on females > Effect on males

:Data supports criteria :Data partially supports criteria :Data does not support criteria

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Hypothesis 3

Rate of Perceived Exertion Music condition Female Male M SD M SD No music 13.20 1.48 14.00 2.12 Asynchronous music 14.30 1.83 15.78 1.79 Synchronous music 13.90 1.60 15.89 1.62

Hypothesis 3

Effect on females > Effect on males

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Hypothesis 3

  • BMRI-3 rating higher for females

Music condition Female Male M SD M SD Asynchronous music 37.45 3.27 34.83 3.28 Synchronous music 36.10 2.18 31.00 6.36

Hypothesis 3

Effect on females > Effect on males

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Hypothesis 3 More research can be done as other data does not have significant support towards this hypothesis

Hypothesis 3

Effect on females > Effect on males

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Overview

Introduction Aim and Objective Methodology Results & Discussion

Conclusion

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Conclusion

Conclusion

1.Music improves experience compared to no music. 2.Motivational factor of music affects experience more than the tempo.

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Conclusion

Future Study

1.Choice of music 2.Demographics

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Conclusion

Application

1.Physical Education 2.Foundation for future studies

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Thank You!

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our supervisors, Dr Masato Kawabata and Ms Bernadette Bree Ashley for their guidance and support throughout the

  • research. Without your unwavering support, we would not be able to complete this research. We would also like to express our gratitude to our

school mentor Mr Nicholas Wong for his assistance in writing the research paper and tracking our learning progress. We would like to thank Nanyang Technological University, Singapore for this research opportunity. Last but not least, we would like to thank the participants for their enthusiasm in participating in this study.

slide-39
SLIDE 39

QnA slides

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Limitations

1.Timing 2.Intensity of exercise

  • 3. Human factor
  • 4. Number of people
slide-41
SLIDE 41

Methodology: Lab test

No Music condition as the baseline → Prevent Involuntary Musical Imagery (INMI) .

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Conclusion

Methodology: Lab test

Asynchronous and Synchronous condition randomised → minimise sequencing effect

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Methodology: Lab test

10 min rest time → Rest ratio 1:3 in interval training.

Approximate % of maximum power Typical exercise duration Range of exercise-to-rest period ratios 90 - 100 5 – 10 seconds 1:12 to 1:20 75 - 90 15 – 30 seconds 1:3 to 1:5 30 - 75 1 – 3 minutes 1:2 to 1:4 20 - 35 >3 minutes 1:1 to 1:3

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Table 1: BMRI-3 Means and Standard Deviations by Music Condition and Gender (Significance between music conditions and gender)

Music condition Female Male Total M SD M SD M SD Asynchronous music 37.45 3.27 34.83 3.28 36.21 3.45 Synchronous music 36.10 2.18 31.00 6.36 33.68 5.22

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Table 2: Heart Rate Means and Standard Deviations by Music Condition and Gender (Significance between music conditions)

Music condition Female Male Total M SD M SD M SD No music 183.20 6.83 184.78 11.94 183.95 9.34 Asynchronous music 189.40 7.72 192.87 9.29 191.00 8.49 Synchronous music 191.00 8.35 193.44 10.14 192.16 9.06

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Table 3: Attentional Focus Means and Standard Deviations by Music Condition and Gender (Marginal significance between music conditions)

Music condition Female Male Total M SD M SD M SD No music 4.10 2.77 4.89 2.42 4.47 2.57 Asynchronous music 5.40 1.90 5.67 2.74 5.53 2.27 Synchronous music 4.60 2.32 5.56 2.01 5.05 2.17

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Table 4: Rate of Perceived Exertion Means by Music Condition and Gender (Significance between music conditions and gender)

Music condition Female Male Total M SD M SD M SD No music 13.20 1.48 14.00 2.12 13.58 1.81 Asynchronous music 14.30 1.83 15.78 1.79 15.00 1.92 Synchronous music 13.90 1.60 15.89 1.62 14.84 1.87

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Table 5: Enjoyment Means and Standard Deviations by Music Condition and Gender (Marginal significance between music conditions)

Music condition Female Male Total M SD M SD M SD No music 3.56 1.30 3.89 1.17 3.71 1.22 Asynchronous music 3.99 1.16 4.46 .93 4.21 1.06 Synchronous music 3.89 .83 4.11 .80 3.99 .80

slide-49
SLIDE 49