ArticlePloS one2026
The effect of a familiarization critical speed testing session on critical speed determination during treadmill running.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effect of familiarization with the critical speed (CS) testing process on the outcome of CS tests has yet to be determined.
objectivesThe main aims of the present study were to determine whether a familiarization session prior to CS testing sessions affects time to task-failure (TTF) on subsequent tests and CS estimations, and whether individual characteristics such as sex and fitness status influence any familiarization effect.
methods27 healthy adults (10 females, 25 ± 4 yrs) performed the following treadmill protocol: i) a maximal incremental test to identify peak speed; ii) a familiarization constant-intensity trial (CTfam) at the intensity of the first constant-intensity trial used for CS determination (CTCS), and iii) four randomly ordered maximal constant-intensity trials at ~ 85%, 92%, 98%, and 105% of peak speed. CS was estimated using 2-parameter hyperbolic, linear, and 1/time models including the CTfam (CS not familiarized) or the CTCS (CS familiarized). Familiarized and not-familiarized TTFs and CSs were compared using Wilcoxon tests. Sex effect was analyzed using Mann-Whitney test on the difference in the TTF between CTCS and CTfam. The correlation between peak speed and difference in the TTF between CTCS and CTfam was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. α was set at 0.05.
resultsCTfam TTF (399 [299] s, median [interquartile range]) was lower (p = 0.009) than CTCS TTF (495[316] s), whereas CS familiarized and not-familiarized were not different in any model (p > 0.05). Sex did not affect the differences between familiarized and not-familiarized TTFs and CS. However, differences in the TTF between CTCS and CTfam were negatively correlated with peak speed (ρ = -0.381, p = 0.050).
conclusionsFamiliarization with constant-intensity trials affected the TTF but not CS. Importantly, the familiarization effect was larger in less fit individuals, showing a negative correlation between the TTF differences (i.e., CTCS minus CTfam) and peak speed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.