FES-Cycling at the Cybathlon 2024: assessing accuracy of power-pedals for low power output in a virtual race scenario.
Martin Schmoll, Anna Pataraia, Quang Nguyen and 14 others
PMID 42192443WHAT IT FOUND
Power pedals used in electrical stimulation cycling races overestimated output by 14.7% to 66.6% compared with the smart trainer.
Ankle orthoses worsened errors. Adjusting settings helped, but neither system was reliable at the low powers typical of spinal cord injury cycling.
Key findings
01During the 2024 FES-Cycling race, pedal power meters reported higher power than the Kickr smart trainer in valid segments, with relative errors of 14.7% to 66.6%.
02In controlled tests, mounting an ankle orthosis on the pedal power meter increased recorded power by 20.1% or 29.8%, depending on foot position.
03Adjusting the crank length reduced pedal power errors, but orthosis positions still showed residual errors of -3.4% and -6.4%.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The paper reports competition and equipment accuracy, not patient outcomes or treatment effects. Power accuracy testing used one healthy participant, not pilots with spinal cord injury. Race analysis used data from eight of ten pilots; one team did not provide original files and one team's results were self-reported. The smart trainer could not measure power below 20 W, so some low-power segments were excluded. Virtual race model used pilot body weight but not device weight, making speeds not comparable to over-ground cycling.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use these power readings as accurate measures of client output during low-power FES cycling. The study found systematic overestimation by pedal power meters, and the errors were larger when an ankle orthosis was used. In race segments above the smart trainer threshold, pedal errors ranged from 14.7% to 66.6%.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →