Authors
Kelly Byrne¹, Áine M. Kelly¹
Affiliation
¹Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, the University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Abstract body
Introduction and aims: Verbal encouragement can enhance physical performance, but it remains unclear whether digitally delivered coaching can reproduce the effects of an in-person coach and whether these effects depend on the type of physical task. This study compared the acute effects of in-person human coaching, standardised digital voice coaching and an instructions-only control on physical performance, perceived exertion and motivation across three high-effort tasks.
Methods: Thirty-seven healthy adults (21 female, 16 male; aged 18–30 years) completed all three coaching conditions in a randomised within-subject design. Participants performed a wall-sit to volitional failure, a 60-s maximal handgrip task with and without visual feedback, and a 30-s Wingate cycling sprint. Performance, ratings of perceived exertion and task-specific motivation were assessed. Condition effects were analysed using Friedman tests with Bonferroni-corrected Wilcoxon signed-rank post-hoc comparisons. The study was approved by the Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee, Trinity College Dublin (Ref. 251003), and all participants provided written informed consent.
Results: Wall-sit time-to-failure differed across conditions in females (χ²(2)=18.13, p<0.001, Kendall’s W=0.432) and males (χ²(2)=16.62, p<0.001, W=0.520). Human coaching exceeded control in females (p=0.004), while both digital voice (p=0.009) and human coaching (p=0.004) exceeded control in males. Wingate peak relative power also differed across conditions in females (χ²(2)=17.16, p<0.001, W=0.409) and males (χ²(2)=18.95, p<0.001, W=0.592). Human coaching exceeded control in females (p=0.005), while both digital voice (p=0.011) and human coaching (p=0.001) exceeded control in males. Handgrip peak force was influenced more consistently by visual feedback than coaching modality. Motivation differed substantially across conditions (χ²(2)=49.24, p<0.001, W=0.665), with scores highest during human coaching, intermediate during digital voice coaching and lowest during control. Post-task perceived exertion did not differ between conditions.
Conclusions: The effects of verbal coaching on acute physical performance are task-dependent. Standardised digital voice coaching reproduced several performance benefits of live coaching, whereas interpersonal human presence provided an additional motivational benefit.