Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time

Identification of heart rate dynamics during... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894" }, "headline": "Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros...", "datePublished": "2024-08-06T11:49:56", "dateModified": "2024-11-01T12:22:58", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kenneth J. Hunt" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hanjie Wang" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background The response of heart rate to changes in exercise intensity is comprised of several dynamic modes with differing magnitudes and temporal characteristics. Investigations of empirical identification of dynamic models of heart rate showed that second-order models gave substantially and significantly better model fidelity compared to the first order case. In the present work, we aimed to reanalyse data from previous studies to more closely consider the effect of including a zero and a pure delay in the model. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of 22 treadmill (TM) and 54 cycle ergometer (CE) data sets from a total of 38 healthy participants. A linear, time-invariant plant model structure with up to two poles, a zero and a dead time is considered. Empirical estimation of the free parameters was performed using least-squares optimisation. The primary outcome measure is model fit, which is a normalised root-mean-square model error. Results A model comprising parallel connection of two first-order transfer functions, one with a dead time and one without, was found to give the highest fit (56.7 % for TM, 54.3 % for CE), whereby the non-delayed component appeared to merely capture initial transients in the data and the part with dead time likely represented the true dynamic response of heart rate to the excitation. In comparison, a simple first-order model without dead time gave substantially lower fit than the parallel model (50.2 % for TM, 47.9 % for CE). Conclusions This preliminary analysis points to a linear first-order system with dead time as being an appropriate model for heart rate response to exercise using treadmill and cycle ergometer modalities. In order to avoid biased estimates, it is vitally important that, prior to parameter estimation and validation, careful attention is paid to data preprocessing in order to eliminate transients and trends. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2", "name": "Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer..." } } ] } Home Browse Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Hunt KJ and Wang H. Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153397.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Brief Report Revised Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] Kenneth J. Hunt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6521-9455 1 , Hanjie Wang 1 Kenneth J. Hunt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6521-9455 1 , Hanjie Wang 1 PUBLISHED 01 Nov 2024 Author details Author details 1 rehaLab - the Laboratory for Rehabilitation Engineering ,Institute for Human Centred Engineering HuCE School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences,, Biel/Bienne, 2501, Switzerland Kenneth J. Hunt Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Hanjie Wang Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background The response of heart rate to changes in exercise intensity is comprised of several dynamic modes with differing magnitudes and temporal characteristics. Investigations of empirical identification of dynamic models of heart rate showed that second-order models gave substantially and significantly better model fidelity compared to the first order case. In the present work, we aimed to reanalyse data from previous studies to more closely consider the effect of including a zero and a pure delay in the model. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of 22 treadmill (TM) and 54 cycle ergometer (CE) data sets from a total of 38 healthy participants. A linear, time-invariant plant model structure with up to two poles, a zero and a dead time is considered. Empirical estimation of the free parameters was performed using least-squares optimisation. The primary outcome measure is model fit, which is a normalised root-mean-square model error. Results A model comprising parallel connection of two first-order transfer functions, one with a dead time and one without, was found to give the highest fit (56.7 % for TM, 54.3 % for CE), whereby the non-delayed component appeared to merely capture initial transients in the data and the part with dead time likely represented the true dynamic response of heart rate to the excitation. In comparison, a simple first-order model without dead time gave substantially lower fit than the parallel model (50.2 % for TM, 47.9 % for CE). Conclusions This preliminary analysis points to a linear first-order system with dead time as being an appropriate model for heart rate response to exercise using treadmill and cycle ergometer modalities. In order to avoid biased estimates, it is vitally important that, prior to parameter estimation and validation, careful attention is paid to data preprocessing in order to eliminate transients and trends. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords heart rate dynamics, system identification, treadmill exercise, cycle ergometer exercise Corresponding Author(s) Kenneth J. Hunt ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Kenneth J. Hunt Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Principal Investigator KH, Grant Ref. 320030-185351). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2024 Hunt KJ and Wang H. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Hunt KJ and Wang H. Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153397.2 ) First published: 06 Aug 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153397.1 ) Latest published: 01 Nov 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153397.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 The article has been revised in response to reviewer comments and suggestions. The major differences are: (i) We provide more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications; (ii) We proved more details on the study population, such that readers do not need to refer to the original, background publications; (iii) Several futher details have been provided including participants' training status, average maximal heart rate etc. The article has been revised in response to reviewer comments and suggestions. The major differences are: (i) We provide more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications; (ii) We proved more details on the study population, such that readers do not need to refer to the original, background publications; (iii) Several futher details have been provided including participants' training status, average maximal heart rate etc. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak See the authors' detailed response to the review by Lauren Miutz READ REVIEWER RESPONSES 1. Introduction Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous. 1 The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures. It has been proposed that heart rate response to changes in exercise intensity comprises three main phases 2 , 3 : an immediate, relatively small and fast Phase I; a slower, delayed and larger Phase II; and, if the exercise intensity exceeds the anaerobic threshold, a later and very slow Phase III drift. This observation led to the investigation of empirical identification of dynamic models of heart rate using first- and second-order transfer functions for treadmill (TM) 4 and cycle ergometer (CE) 5 exercise. The second-order case was anticipated to capture Phase I and II response modes; but, since the models were intended to be used for analytical design of feedback controllers for heart rate, where integral action would cancel very slow drift, Phase III was not considered; in addition, to simplify feedback design, dead time was neglected. Thus, in both of the preceding investigations of heart rate dynamics 4 , 5 the dynamic response of heart rate was modelled as nominal linear transfer functions P o ( s ) of first (P1) and second (P2) order: (1) P 1 : P o ( s ) = k τs + 1 , P 2 : P o ( s ) = k ( τ 1 s + 1 ) ( τ 2 s + 1 ) where k is a steady-state gain and the τ ’s are time constants. It was found that second-order models gave substantially and significantly better model fidelity compared to the first order case (TM, 4 CE 5 ) and that feedback control of heart rate was more accurate when based on second-order models (TM, 6 CE 5 ). But the classical Phase I - Phase II model of heart rate response 2 , 3 comprises the parallel connection of two first-order models, i.e. the sum of a first-order transfer function of the form P 1 above and a P1 with pure delay. Theoretically, this would lead to a second-order model with two poles, but also—when dead time is neglected—with a single zero. The effect of this (theoretical) zero was not reported in the previous studies 4 , 5 as it was found not to lead to any difference in empirical model fit, presumably due to overfitting. Furthermore, since the classical sources propose the addition of a dead time to one of the modes to capture the slightly later onset of the Phase II component, the inclusion of a pure delay warrants further attention. The present work therefore aimed to perform a retrospective analysis of the previous investigations of heart rate dynamics during treadmill 4 and cycle ergometer 5 exercise to more closely consider the effect of including a zero and a dead time in the model. The respective datasets are available on the OLOS repository. 7 , 8 2. Methods 2.1 Data collection Full details of experimental procedures employed for data collection in the preceding treadmill and cycle ergometer investigations can be found in the respective publications. 4 , 5 Essential elements of the protocols are summarised in this Brief Report. For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 4 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 5 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness. A similar pseudo-random binary sequence (PRBS) input signal was employed in both cases to excite relevant modes of heart rate response dynamics. All participants performed two identical open-loop identification tests to facilitate counterbalanced cross-validation of model parameter estimates: consequently, there were 22 TM data sets and 54 CE data sets. All of these data sets were included in the present retrospective analysis. To aid the following Discussion ( Sec. 4 ), all existing heart rate measurements that were included in the parameter estimation and validation procedures are illustrated ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. Heart rate measurements. In each plot, thin lines are the individual measurements (22 for TM, 54 for CE); the thick red lines are averages of the individual measurements. Data are plotted as deviations △ HR around mean heart rate levels. (a) Treadmill, (b) Cycle Ergometer. 2.2 Model structures In the present work, we consider a linear, time-invariant (LTI) plant model structure with up to two poles, a zero and a dead time, that maps an input signal u to the output y , namely (2) P o ( s ) = k ( T z s + 1 ) ( τ 1 s + 1 ) ( τ 2 s + 1 ) e − T d s : u ↦ y where k is the steady-state gain, τ 1 and τ 2 are time constants (corresponding to real poles at s = − 1 / τ 1 and s = − 1 / τ 2 ), T z admits a zero ( s = − 1 / T z ) , and T d is a pure delay. The general model Eq. (2) can be constrained by choice of the τ ’s, T z and T d to several simpler structures as summarised in tabular form ( Table 1 ): in total, the seven model structures listed were considered in the present analysis; this includes one formed by the parallel connection of two first-order transfer functions, one with a dead time and one without, viz. P 1 ∥ P 1 D . Table 1. Model structures. Model P o ( s ) constraints (cf. Eq. (2) ) P1 k τ s + 1 T z = 0 , T d = 0 , τ 1 = τ , τ 2 = 0 P1D k τ s + 1 e − T d s T z = 0 , τ 1 = τ , τ 2 = 0 P2 k ( τ 1 s + 1 ) ( τ 2 s + 1 ) T z = 0 , T d = 0 P2D k ( τ 1 s + 1 ) ( τ 2 s + 1 ) e − T d s T z = 0 P2Z k ( T z s + 1 ) ( τ 1 s + 1 ) ( τ 2 s + 1 ) T d = 0 P2ZD k ( T z s + 1 ) ( τ 1 s + 1 ) ( τ 2 s + 1 ) e − T d s none P 1 ∥ P 1 D k p 1 τ p 1 s + 1 + k p 2 τ p 2 s + 1 e − T d s N/A The generic plant output signal y corresponds to heart rate [beats/min, bpm] while the input u depends on the exercise modality: for the treadmill, it is speed [m/s]; for the cycle ergometer, it is work rate [W]. As noted above, the input for both modalities took the form of a PRBS signal. 2.3 Parameter estimation and outcome measure Empirical parameter estimation was performed using the Matlab System Identification Toolbox (The MathWorks, Inc., USA), wherefore, in the table ( Table 1 ), we have adopted model names corresponding to the terminology used in the toolbox. In general, models of the form Eq. (2) are referred to in the toolbox as “process models”. Estimation of the free model parameters— k , the τ ’s, T z and T d in Eq. (2) , constrained for the different model structures as indicated in Table 1 —was done with the Matlab procest function using least-squares optimisation with regularly sampled time-domain data. 9 To focus the search algorithm, model parameters were constrained to lie in physiologically plausible ranges. As in our previous work 4 , 5 separate models were identified for each individual data set and counterbalanced cross-validation was employed by pairing the two measurements for each participant. The primary outcome measure is model fit, which is a normalised root-mean-square model error (NRMSE): (3) fit = ( 1 − ∑ i = 1 N ( y ( i ) − y sim ( i ) ) 2 ∑ i = 1 N ( y ( i ) − y ¯ ) 2 ) where y ¯ is the mean heart rate and y sim is the heart rate that was simulated using the estimated models. The summations range over the evaluation period up to the number of discrete data points included, N . A sample period of 5 s was used. Model fit was computed using the Matlab compare function. 3. Results Goodness-of-fit values for the seven model structures and two exercise modalities are summarised in Table 2 ; the estimated model parameters are also tabulated ( Table 3 ). Average maximal heart rate for the treadmill was 158.4 bpm; for the cycle ergometer it was 140.2 bpm (this is in line with our setting the mean target heart rate for the CE to be 20 bpm lower than for the TM in order to achieve a similar level of perceived exertion). 10 Table 2. Mean model fit (normalised RMSE, Eq. (3) , [%]). Modality P1 P1D P2 P2D P2Z P2ZD P 1 ∥ P 1 D TM 50.2 54.0 54.5 54.5 53.9 55.2 56.7 CE 47.9 51.9 51.0 52.1 50.4 52.8 54.3 Table 3. Model parameters for treadmill (TM) and cycle ergometer (CE). Model Modality k / ( bpm / [ u ] ) τ 1 / s τ 2 / s T z / s T d / s P1 TM 28.6 70.6 - - - CE 0.46 68.8 - - - P1D TM 25.0 47.7 - - 13.1 CE 0.40 45.9 - - 13.8 P2 TM 24.7 18.6 37.8 - - CE 0.39 19.6 37.7 - - P2D TM 23.9 13.7 37.8 - 5.4 CE 0.38 15.5 33.2 - 6.9 P2Z TM 24.1 24.9 40.2 7.3 - CE 0.38 31.2 46.2 18.7 - P2ZD TM 23.7 33.2 50.6 38.4 11.1 CE 0.39 33.5 59.4 50.0 12.5 P 1 ∥ ( P 1 D ) * TM 7.0 141.5 - - - CE 0.09 180.7 - - - ( P 1 ) ∥ P 1 D * TM 20.2 34.3 - - 17.9 CE 0.35 37.9 - - 17.1 * For the P 1 ∥ P 1 D model structure, parameters are shown separately for the P1 (second-bottom row) and P1D (bottom row) components: k and τ 1 correspond respectively to k p 1 and τ p 1 , or k p 2 and τ p 2 , in the bottom row of Table 1 . 4. Discussion Goodness-of-fit outcomes for the treadmill and cycle ergometer followed a similar pattern. There was a substantial improvement in fit for P1D vs. P1, indicating the clear presence of dead time in heart rate response; T d for P1D was similar for TM and CE at 13.1 s and 13.8 s, respectively ( Table 3 ). Model fit for P2, P2D and P2Z was similar to P1D, while P2ZD showed a further slight improvement. It has to be remarked, however, that estimated T z values for individual models varied widely on the range -15 s to 100 s, thus displaying in part negative-phase behaviour (i.e. T z < 0 ). Furthermore, fit for P2Z was slightly lower than for P1D, P2 and P2D. Taken together, these observations point to a degree of overfitting when a plant zero is included. Having excluded further consideration of models with a zero, we note a further substantial increase in fit for the parallel P 1 ∥ P 1 D model structure when compared to P1D, P2 and P2D. A critical observation in this regard is that the P1 parameters in the P 1 ∥ P 1 D structure displayed very small gains and very large time constants when compared to the parallel-models’ P1D parameters ( Table 3 ): for the TM, the gains were 7.0 bpm/(m/s) and 20.2 bpm/(m/s), (P1 vs. P1D), and the time constants 141.5 s vs. 34.3 s; for the CE, gains were 0.09 bpm/W vs. 0.35 bpm/W and time constants 180.7 s vs. 37.9 s. A likely explanation for this apparent anomaly can be gleaned by perusal of the heart rate measurements ( Figure 1 ). It can be seen that there is a small yet clearly discernible drift in heart rate during the first few minutes of the responses, with the duration of drift in line with the observed P1 time constants 141.5 s (TM, Figure 1a ) and 180.7 s (CE, Figure 1b ). It is therefore plausible that the P1 part of the P 1 ∥ P 1 D model merely reflects the initial transient, while the P1D part represents the true dynamic response of heart rate to the excitation. Care should therefore be taken in future investigations to exclude initial transients and slow trends prior to parameter estimation and validation. The gains and time constants are seen to be somewhat lower for the P1D part of the P 1 ∥ P 1 D model than for the P1D-only model (gains 20.2 bpm/(m/s) vs. 25.0 bpm/(m/s) for TM, 0.35 bpm/W vs. 0.40 bpm/W for CE; time constants 34.3 s vs. 47.7 s for TM, 37.9 s vs. 45.9 s for CE; Table 3 ), and the dead times somewhat higher (17.9 s vs. 13.1 s for TM, 17.1 s vs. 13.8 s for CE). These differences are likely due to model bias introduced in the P1D-only model as a consequence of the initial drift in heart rate, as discussed above. As noted in previous reports 4 , 5 second-order models of the form P2 gave substantially and significantly better fidelity than first-order models P1 (cf. Table 2 ). However, the identification here of a substantial dead time, coupled with the observed superiority of the P1D part of the parallel P 1 ∥ P 1 D model (following elimination of heart rate drift), suggests that the second time constant in the P2 model may simply have partially absorbed the neglected time delay rather than having modelled any underlying dynamic mode in the heart rate response. A final observation is that the time constants for the TM and CE, when compared for all seven model structures, are in strikingly close agreement ( Table 3 ). This is in line with a previous comparison of heart rate dynamics between the TM and CE modalities that showed no significant difference in the time constant of heart rate response. 10 Due to the retrospective nature of this investigation—that used existing data sets—the results and conclusions are considered to be provisional, but they do provide insights for the design of future studies: to avoid the confounding effect of initial transients, the plant input test signal should be designed to ensure that a physiological steady state has been reached in advance of the data evaluation period; a formal, statistical study design should be employed for comparison of the different model structures - the results of the present work provide effect-size estimates for statistical power and sample size calculations. 5. Conclusions This preliminary analysis points to the P1D structure—that is to say, a linear first-order system with dead time—as being an appropriate model for heart rate response to exercise using treadmill and cycle ergometer modalities. In order to avoid biased estimates, it is vitally important that, prior to parameter estimation and validation, careful attention is paid to data preprocessing in order to eliminate transients and trends. Ethical considerations The study that generated both the treadmill and cycle ergometer datasets was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki; the study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Swiss Canton of Bern (Ref. 2019-02184; approval date 16 January 2020). Participants provided written, informed consent prior to inclusion in the study. Authors’ contributions Both authors made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study; HW did the treadmill data acquisition; KH and HW performed the data analysis; both authors contributed to the interpretation of the data. KH drafted the manuscript; HW reviewed it critically for important intellectual content. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Data availability The datasets analysed in this research are available in the OLOS repository as follows: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill exercise: comparison of first- and second-order models - Treadmill dataset, https://doi.org/10.34914/olos:bivq3dcebff5dfrqtbf3v5y7si . 7 Heart rate dynamics identification and control in cycle ergometer exercise: Comparison of first- and second-order performance --Cycle ergometer dataset, https://doi.org/10.34914/olos:xtyv7akiu5bzdba3oemrarg4ru . 8 Please click on the link, then click on the “Files” tab at the bottom right of the screen to access the data. Data is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license . Software Data analysis was conducted using third-party proprietary software (Matlab, Release 2024a, The MathWorks, Inc., USA). There is no open-source alternative that performs the specific functions employed. The Methods section of this article provides sufficient information to allow replication of the analysis, i.e. Matlab function names and mathematical definitions of the outcome measures. Acknowledgements Alexander Spörri (Bern University of Applied Sciences) did the cycle ergometer data acquisition. References 1. Riebe D, Ehrman JK, Liguori G, et al. : ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 10th ed.Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2018. 2. Whipp BJ, Ward SA, Lamarra N, et al. : Parameters of ventilatory and gas exchange dynamics during exercise. J. Appl. Physiol. 1982; 52 (6): 1506–1513. Publisher Full Text 3. Bearden SE, Moffat RJ: VO2 and heart rate kinetics in cycling: transitions from an elevated baseline. J. Appl. Physiol. 2001; 90 (6): 2081–2087. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 4. Wang H, Hunt KJ: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill exercise: comparison of first- and second-order models. Biomed. Eng. Online. 2021; 20 (37): 10–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 5. Spörri AH, Wang H, Hunt KJ: Heart rate dynamics identification and control in cycle ergometer exercise: comparison of first- and second-order performance. Front. Control Eng. 2022; 3 : 894180. Publisher Full Text 6. Wang H, Hunt KJ: Feedback control of heart rate during treadmill exercise based on a two-phase response model. PLoS One. 2023; 18 (10): e0292310. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 7. Wang H, Hunt KJ: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill exercise: comparison of first- and second-order models. [Dataset]. OLOS Repository. 2023. Publisher Full Text 8. Spörri AH, Wang H, Hunt KJ: Heart rate dynamics identification and control in cycle ergometer exercise: comparison of first- and second-order performance. [Dataset]. OLOS Repository. 2023. Publisher Full Text 9. Ljung L: System Identification: theory for the user. 2nd ed.Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall; 1998. 10. Hunt KJ, Grunder R, Zahnd A: Identification and comparison of heart-rate dynamics during cycle ergometer and treadmill exercise. PLoS One. 2019; 14 (8): e0220826. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Aug 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 rehaLab - the Laboratory for Rehabilitation Engineering ,Institute for Human Centred Engineering HuCE School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences,, Biel/Bienne, 2501, Switzerland Kenneth J. Hunt Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Hanjie Wang Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Principal Investigator KH, Grant Ref. 320030-185351). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 01 Nov 2024, 13:894 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153397.2 version 1 Published: 06 Aug 2024, 13:894 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153397.1 Copyright © 2024 Hunt KJ and Wang H. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Hunt KJ and Wang H. Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153397.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 01 Nov 2024 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Miutz L. Reviewer Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173966.r336843 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2#referee-response-336843 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 09 Nov 2024 Lauren Miutz , Department of Health and Sport Science, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, USA; Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173966.r336843 Appreciate the authors addressing my previous comments ... Continue reading READ ALL Appreciate the authors addressing my previous comments and adding the additional information to the article. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Exercise Physiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Miutz L. Reviewer Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173966.r336843 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2#referee-response-336843 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kasiak PS. Reviewer Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173966.r336844 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2#referee-response-336844 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 06 Nov 2024 Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak , Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173966.r336844 I'm grateful for the Authors for applying necessary revision. I also congratulate them on their article. Finally, please reconsider adding a proposed reference. References 1. Kasiak PS, Wiecha S, Cieśliński I, Takken T, et al.: Validity of the Maximal Heart ... Continue reading READ ALL I'm grateful for the Authors for applying necessary revision. I also congratulate them on their article. Finally, please reconsider adding a proposed reference. References 1. Kasiak PS, Wiecha S, Cieśliński I, Takken T, et al.: Validity of the Maximal Heart Rate Prediction Models among Runners and Cyclists. J Clin Med . 2023; 12 (8). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Sports Cardiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kasiak PS. Reviewer Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173966.r336844 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2#referee-response-336844 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 06 Aug 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Miutz L. Reviewer Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168288.r331353 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v1#referee-response-331353 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 24 Oct 2024 Lauren Miutz , Department of Health and Sport Science, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, USA; Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168288.r331353 Brief description of article: Reanalyzed retrospective data to better identify a model of best fit for heart rate changes during exercise. The present study included a zero point and a pure delay in the heart rate model. ... Continue reading READ ALL Brief description of article: Reanalyzed retrospective data to better identify a model of best fit for heart rate changes during exercise. The present study included a zero point and a pure delay in the heart rate model. Relevance: Although the research reported that the model including dead time (compared to the model without dead time) provided a “better fit,” is the this clinically meaningful. The researchers reported a change in percentage of fit, however in the field of clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology, heart rate (especially regarding exercise) is largely provided as a range. Thus, are the percentages provided, between the two models, clinically relevant within the field. Major points: • Additional detail around the sample is needed, simply referencing the original work is not sufficient. • Information around resting average heart rate (cycle and treadmill) and average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) should be provided. Minor point: • Training status of the participants should be reports as heart rate (and potentially the delay and amount of dead time) are often linked to one’s training status, especially aerobic capacity. • Interesting findings, however when reanalyzing retrospective data the researchers need to be careful the questions being answered is relevant and that adequate detail is provided to the reader, regardless of their knowledge surrounding the original study/data set. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Exercise physiology; cerebrovascular physiology; sport-related concussion & exertional measures I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Miutz L. Reviewer Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168288.r331353 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v1#referee-response-331353 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 01 Nov 2024 Kenneth Hunt , rehaLab - the Laboratory for Rehabilitation Engineering ,Institute for Human Centred Engineering HuCE School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences,, Biel/Bienne, 2501, Switzerland 01 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented ... Continue reading Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented as noted below and submitted using “track changes” in the revised manuscript. With best wishes. Yours faithfully The authors Reviewer #2 Report and Response : Lauren Miutz Brief description of article: Reanalyzed retrospective data to better identify a model of best fit for heart rate changes during exercise. The present study included a zero point and a pure delay in the heart rate model. RESPONSE : We would like to thank you for your careful reading of our article and for your constructive comments. Please find below our point-by-point response. Relevance: Although the research reported that the model including dead time (compared to the model without dead time) provided a “better fit,” is the this [sic] clinically meaningful. The researchers reported a change in percentage of fit, however in the field of clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology, heart rate (especially regarding exercise) is largely provided as a range. Thus, are the percentages provided, between the two models, clinically relevant within the field. RESPONSE : Thank you for this remark regarding relevance for clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology. In a similar vein, Reviewer #1 requested more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications. To address these points, we added the following paragraph at the start of the Introduction: “Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous [10]. The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures.” Furthermore, we would like to remark that, in the field of systems and control engineering—which is the field within which we authors work—model fidelity is usually provided either in absolute terms as a root-mean-square error (RMSE) or as a normalised RMSE, i.e. model fit, expressed in percent. We cannot definitively answer the question of whether the reported improvement in fit will be relevant to researchers or practitioners in other fields (e.g. exercise physiologists) and must leave it up to colleagues in those fields to assess our findings for themselves. Major points: • Additional detail around the sample is needed, simply referencing the original work is not sufficient. RESPONSE : Thank you for this recommendation (a similar request was made by Reviewer #1). We do agree that it would be helpful to the reader to have more information in the current article. As noted in our response to Reviewer #1, we have added more details to the Methods, as follows: “For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 3 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 4 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness.” • Information around resting average heart rate (cycle and treadmill) and average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) should be provided. RESPONSE : Thank you for this suggestion. We have added information on average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) to the Results section, as quoted below. Unfortunately, we cannot provide average resting heart rate because recording was started at the onset of the PRBS input signal: resting heart rate was not recorded (resting HR played no role in the analysis). Text added to Results: “Average maximal heart rate for the treadmill was 158.4 bpm; for the cycle ergometer it was 140.2 bpm (this is in line with our setting the mean target heart rate for the CE to be 20 bpm lower than for the TM in order to achieve a similar level of perceived exertion [9]).” Minor point: • Training status of the participants should be reports [sic] as heart rate (and potentially the delay and amount of dead time) are often linked to one’s training status, especially aerobic capacity. RESPONSE : Thank you for this comment. As noted above, we have now provided information regarding participants’ training status: “Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week) …”. Beyond this requirement (it was a formal inclusion criterion), we did not record any further information in this regard. • Interesting findings, however when reanalyzing retrospective data the researchers need to be careful the questions being answered is relevant and that adequate detail is provided to the reader, regardless of their knowledge surrounding the original study/data set. RESPONSE : Many thanks for your observations, which are valuable. We hope that our responses and the corresponding revision of the manuscript now provide adequate detail independent of the original publications. Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented as noted below and submitted using “track changes” in the revised manuscript. With best wishes. Yours faithfully The authors Reviewer #2 Report and Response : Lauren Miutz Brief description of article: Reanalyzed retrospective data to better identify a model of best fit for heart rate changes during exercise. The present study included a zero point and a pure delay in the heart rate model. RESPONSE : We would like to thank you for your careful reading of our article and for your constructive comments. Please find below our point-by-point response. Relevance: Although the research reported that the model including dead time (compared to the model without dead time) provided a “better fit,” is the this [sic] clinically meaningful. The researchers reported a change in percentage of fit, however in the field of clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology, heart rate (especially regarding exercise) is largely provided as a range. Thus, are the percentages provided, between the two models, clinically relevant within the field. RESPONSE : Thank you for this remark regarding relevance for clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology. In a similar vein, Reviewer #1 requested more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications. To address these points, we added the following paragraph at the start of the Introduction: “Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous [10]. The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures.” Furthermore, we would like to remark that, in the field of systems and control engineering—which is the field within which we authors work—model fidelity is usually provided either in absolute terms as a root-mean-square error (RMSE) or as a normalised RMSE, i.e. model fit, expressed in percent. We cannot definitively answer the question of whether the reported improvement in fit will be relevant to researchers or practitioners in other fields (e.g. exercise physiologists) and must leave it up to colleagues in those fields to assess our findings for themselves. Major points: • Additional detail around the sample is needed, simply referencing the original work is not sufficient. RESPONSE : Thank you for this recommendation (a similar request was made by Reviewer #1). We do agree that it would be helpful to the reader to have more information in the current article. As noted in our response to Reviewer #1, we have added more details to the Methods, as follows: “For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 3 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 4 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness.” • Information around resting average heart rate (cycle and treadmill) and average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) should be provided. RESPONSE : Thank you for this suggestion. We have added information on average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) to the Results section, as quoted below. Unfortunately, we cannot provide average resting heart rate because recording was started at the onset of the PRBS input signal: resting heart rate was not recorded (resting HR played no role in the analysis). Text added to Results: “Average maximal heart rate for the treadmill was 158.4 bpm; for the cycle ergometer it was 140.2 bpm (this is in line with our setting the mean target heart rate for the CE to be 20 bpm lower than for the TM in order to achieve a similar level of perceived exertion [9]).” Minor point: • Training status of the participants should be reports [sic] as heart rate (and potentially the delay and amount of dead time) are often linked to one’s training status, especially aerobic capacity. RESPONSE : Thank you for this comment. As noted above, we have now provided information regarding participants’ training status: “Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week) …”. Beyond this requirement (it was a formal inclusion criterion), we did not record any further information in this regard. • Interesting findings, however when reanalyzing retrospective data the researchers need to be careful the questions being answered is relevant and that adequate detail is provided to the reader, regardless of their knowledge surrounding the original study/data set. RESPONSE : Many thanks for your observations, which are valuable. We hope that our responses and the corresponding revision of the manuscript now provide adequate detail independent of the original publications. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 01 Nov 2024 Kenneth Hunt , rehaLab - the Laboratory for Rehabilitation Engineering ,Institute for Human Centred Engineering HuCE School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences,, Biel/Bienne, 2501, Switzerland 01 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented ... Continue reading Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented as noted below and submitted using “track changes” in the revised manuscript. With best wishes. Yours faithfully The authors Reviewer #2 Report and Response : Lauren Miutz Brief description of article: Reanalyzed retrospective data to better identify a model of best fit for heart rate changes during exercise. The present study included a zero point and a pure delay in the heart rate model. RESPONSE : We would like to thank you for your careful reading of our article and for your constructive comments. Please find below our point-by-point response. Relevance: Although the research reported that the model including dead time (compared to the model without dead time) provided a “better fit,” is the this [sic] clinically meaningful. The researchers reported a change in percentage of fit, however in the field of clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology, heart rate (especially regarding exercise) is largely provided as a range. Thus, are the percentages provided, between the two models, clinically relevant within the field. RESPONSE : Thank you for this remark regarding relevance for clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology. In a similar vein, Reviewer #1 requested more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications. To address these points, we added the following paragraph at the start of the Introduction: “Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous [10]. The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures.” Furthermore, we would like to remark that, in the field of systems and control engineering—which is the field within which we authors work—model fidelity is usually provided either in absolute terms as a root-mean-square error (RMSE) or as a normalised RMSE, i.e. model fit, expressed in percent. We cannot definitively answer the question of whether the reported improvement in fit will be relevant to researchers or practitioners in other fields (e.g. exercise physiologists) and must leave it up to colleagues in those fields to assess our findings for themselves. Major points: • Additional detail around the sample is needed, simply referencing the original work is not sufficient. RESPONSE : Thank you for this recommendation (a similar request was made by Reviewer #1). We do agree that it would be helpful to the reader to have more information in the current article. As noted in our response to Reviewer #1, we have added more details to the Methods, as follows: “For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 3 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 4 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness.” • Information around resting average heart rate (cycle and treadmill) and average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) should be provided. RESPONSE : Thank you for this suggestion. We have added information on average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) to the Results section, as quoted below. Unfortunately, we cannot provide average resting heart rate because recording was started at the onset of the PRBS input signal: resting heart rate was not recorded (resting HR played no role in the analysis). Text added to Results: “Average maximal heart rate for the treadmill was 158.4 bpm; for the cycle ergometer it was 140.2 bpm (this is in line with our setting the mean target heart rate for the CE to be 20 bpm lower than for the TM in order to achieve a similar level of perceived exertion [9]).” Minor point: • Training status of the participants should be reports [sic] as heart rate (and potentially the delay and amount of dead time) are often linked to one’s training status, especially aerobic capacity. RESPONSE : Thank you for this comment. As noted above, we have now provided information regarding participants’ training status: “Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week) …”. Beyond this requirement (it was a formal inclusion criterion), we did not record any further information in this regard. • Interesting findings, however when reanalyzing retrospective data the researchers need to be careful the questions being answered is relevant and that adequate detail is provided to the reader, regardless of their knowledge surrounding the original study/data set. RESPONSE : Many thanks for your observations, which are valuable. We hope that our responses and the corresponding revision of the manuscript now provide adequate detail independent of the original publications. Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented as noted below and submitted using “track changes” in the revised manuscript. With best wishes. Yours faithfully The authors Reviewer #2 Report and Response : Lauren Miutz Brief description of article: Reanalyzed retrospective data to better identify a model of best fit for heart rate changes during exercise. The present study included a zero point and a pure delay in the heart rate model. RESPONSE : We would like to thank you for your careful reading of our article and for your constructive comments. Please find below our point-by-point response. Relevance: Although the research reported that the model including dead time (compared to the model without dead time) provided a “better fit,” is the this [sic] clinically meaningful. The researchers reported a change in percentage of fit, however in the field of clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology, heart rate (especially regarding exercise) is largely provided as a range. Thus, are the percentages provided, between the two models, clinically relevant within the field. RESPONSE : Thank you for this remark regarding relevance for clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology. In a similar vein, Reviewer #1 requested more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications. To address these points, we added the following paragraph at the start of the Introduction: “Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous [10]. The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures.” Furthermore, we would like to remark that, in the field of systems and control engineering—which is the field within which we authors work—model fidelity is usually provided either in absolute terms as a root-mean-square error (RMSE) or as a normalised RMSE, i.e. model fit, expressed in percent. We cannot definitively answer the question of whether the reported improvement in fit will be relevant to researchers or practitioners in other fields (e.g. exercise physiologists) and must leave it up to colleagues in those fields to assess our findings for themselves. Major points: • Additional detail around the sample is needed, simply referencing the original work is not sufficient. RESPONSE : Thank you for this recommendation (a similar request was made by Reviewer #1). We do agree that it would be helpful to the reader to have more information in the current article. As noted in our response to Reviewer #1, we have added more details to the Methods, as follows: “For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 3 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 4 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness.” • Information around resting average heart rate (cycle and treadmill) and average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) should be provided. RESPONSE : Thank you for this suggestion. We have added information on average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) to the Results section, as quoted below. Unfortunately, we cannot provide average resting heart rate because recording was started at the onset of the PRBS input signal: resting heart rate was not recorded (resting HR played no role in the analysis). Text added to Results: “Average maximal heart rate for the treadmill was 158.4 bpm; for the cycle ergometer it was 140.2 bpm (this is in line with our setting the mean target heart rate for the CE to be 20 bpm lower than for the TM in order to achieve a similar level of perceived exertion [9]).” Minor point: • Training status of the participants should be reports [sic] as heart rate (and potentially the delay and amount of dead time) are often linked to one’s training status, especially aerobic capacity. RESPONSE : Thank you for this comment. As noted above, we have now provided information regarding participants’ training status: “Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week) …”. Beyond this requirement (it was a formal inclusion criterion), we did not record any further information in this regard. • Interesting findings, however when reanalyzing retrospective data the researchers need to be careful the questions being answered is relevant and that adequate detail is provided to the reader, regardless of their knowledge surrounding the original study/data set. RESPONSE : Many thanks for your observations, which are valuable. We hope that our responses and the corresponding revision of the manuscript now provide adequate detail independent of the original publications. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kasiak PS. Reviewer Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168288.r317159 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v1#referee-response-317159 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 27 Aug 2024 Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak , Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168288.r317159 Firstly, I would like to thank for inviting me as a Referee of this study. This research touches an important topic of heart rate during exercise and provide useful piece of knowledge for clinicians and sport practitioners. I am providing ... Continue reading READ ALL Firstly, I would like to thank for inviting me as a Referee of this study. This research touches an important topic of heart rate during exercise and provide useful piece of knowledge for clinicians and sport practitioners. I am providing my comments for the Authors below. Major issues: I suggest more precise description of the rationale for this study from clinical and physiological perspective. Perhaps, an additional paragraph in the introduction would be welcome. Similarly, there is a lack of information about practical applications of this study in the discussion. Minor issues: I suggest providing a brief description of the study population in the abstract. If the Authors will meet the word limit, I strongly recommend enhancing the information about study group (their demographics, fitness level etc.) and testing protocols. Did the Authors evaluate sample size to ensure credibility of their analysis and conclusions? There are only 38 participants in this study. In summary, this study is interesting. Further analysis of the preliminary report would be helpful for deep understanding of heart rate response to exercises. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Sports Cardiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kasiak PS. Reviewer Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168288.r317159 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v1#referee-response-317159 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 01 Nov 2024 Kenneth Hunt , rehaLab - the Laboratory for Rehabilitation Engineering ,Institute for Human Centred Engineering HuCE School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences,, Biel/Bienne, 2501, Switzerland 01 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented ... Continue reading Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented as noted below and submitted using “track changes” in the revised manuscript. With best wishes. Yours faithfully The authors Reviewer #1 Report and Response : Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak Firstly, I would like to thank for inviting me as a Referee of this study. This research touches an important topic of heart rate during exercise and provide useful piece of knowledge for clinicians and sport practitioners. I am providing my comments for the Authors below. RESPONSE : Dziękuję bardzo—and thank you very much for your helpful comments, especially for your observation of relevance for clinicians and sport practitioners. Major issues: I suggest more precise description of the rationale for this study from clinical and physiological perspective. Perhaps, an additional paragraph in the introduction would be welcome. Similarly, there is a lack of information about practical applications of this study in the discussion. RESPONSE : Thank you for these suggestions. We agree it is very useful to provide more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications. To address both of these points, we have added the following paragraph at the start of the Introduction: “Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous [10]. The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures.” New reference [10]: 10. Riebe D, Ehrman JK, Liguori G, Magal M, editors. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2018. Minor issues: I suggest providing a brief description of the study population in the abstract. RESPONSE : Regrettably, the Abstract already has 298 words, with a limit of 300 words. But we have provided more detailed information on the study population in the main text as noted below. If the Authors will meet the word limit, I strongly recommend enhancing the information about study group (their demographics, fitness level etc.) and testing protocols. RESPONSE : Thank you for this suggestion. As mentioned in the text, this is a retrospective analysis of data from two previously-published studies. We pointed out that full information regarding the study groups and testing protocols can be found in the corresponding citations, viz. references [3] and [4], as follows: “Full details of experimental procedures employed for data collection in the preceding treadmill and cycle ergometer investigations can be found in the respective publications. 3 , 4 Essential elements of the protocols are summarised in this Brief Report.” Nevertheless, we do agree it would be helpful to the reader to have more information in the current article, for which reason we have added more details to the Methods, as follows: “For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 3 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 4 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness.” Did the Authors evaluate sample size to ensure credibility of their analysis and conclusions? There are only 38 participants in this study. RESPONSE : Thank you for this important query. As noted above, the 38 participants came from two previous studies: a pilot treadmill study, [3], with 11 participants, and a cycle ergometer study, [4], with 27 participants. For the treadmill study, the sample size of n = 11 was chosen in accordance with the requirements of pilot studies, and no formal statistical power analysis was conducted. For the cycle ergometer study, an a priori statistical power and sample size estimate was included in the study protocol that was approved by our ethics committee. The details can be found in reference [4], as follows: “The sample size of n = 27 participants was estimated a priori by a statistical power calculation that used estimates of expected effect sizes and sample standard deviations obtained from previous studies in this lab, with the significance level of 5 % and a statistical power of 80 % (1 − β = 0.8).” In both cases, no post-hoc statistical power calculation was performed because observed effect sizes and their uncertainty bounds supersede any a priori estimates, and because “Post-hoc power estimates … have been shown to be logically invalid and practically misleading”; quotation from: Dziak JJ, Dierker LC, Abar B. The Interpretation of Statistical Power after the Data have been Gathered. Curr Psychol. 2020 Jun;39(3):870-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0018-1 Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented as noted below and submitted using “track changes” in the revised manuscript. With best wishes. Yours faithfully The authors Reviewer #1 Report and Response : Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak Firstly, I would like to thank for inviting me as a Referee of this study. This research touches an important topic of heart rate during exercise and provide useful piece of knowledge for clinicians and sport practitioners. I am providing my comments for the Authors below. RESPONSE : Dziękuję bardzo—and thank you very much for your helpful comments, especially for your observation of relevance for clinicians and sport practitioners. Major issues: I suggest more precise description of the rationale for this study from clinical and physiological perspective. Perhaps, an additional paragraph in the introduction would be welcome. Similarly, there is a lack of information about practical applications of this study in the discussion. RESPONSE : Thank you for these suggestions. We agree it is very useful to provide more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications. To address both of these points, we have added the following paragraph at the start of the Introduction: “Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous [10]. The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures.” New reference [10]: 10. Riebe D, Ehrman JK, Liguori G, Magal M, editors. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2018. Minor issues: I suggest providing a brief description of the study population in the abstract. RESPONSE : Regrettably, the Abstract already has 298 words, with a limit of 300 words. But we have provided more detailed information on the study population in the main text as noted below. If the Authors will meet the word limit, I strongly recommend enhancing the information about study group (their demographics, fitness level etc.) and testing protocols. RESPONSE : Thank you for this suggestion. As mentioned in the text, this is a retrospective analysis of data from two previously-published studies. We pointed out that full information regarding the study groups and testing protocols can be found in the corresponding citations, viz. references [3] and [4], as follows: “Full details of experimental procedures employed for data collection in the preceding treadmill and cycle ergometer investigations can be found in the respective publications. 3 , 4 Essential elements of the protocols are summarised in this Brief Report.” Nevertheless, we do agree it would be helpful to the reader to have more information in the current article, for which reason we have added more details to the Methods, as follows: “For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 3 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 4 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness.” Did the Authors evaluate sample size to ensure credibility of their analysis and conclusions? There are only 38 participants in this study. RESPONSE : Thank you for this important query. As noted above, the 38 participants came from two previous studies: a pilot treadmill study, [3], with 11 participants, and a cycle ergometer study, [4], with 27 participants. For the treadmill study, the sample size of n = 11 was chosen in accordance with the requirements of pilot studies, and no formal statistical power analysis was conducted. For the cycle ergometer study, an a priori statistical power and sample size estimate was included in the study protocol that was approved by our ethics committee. The details can be found in reference [4], as follows: “The sample size of n = 27 participants was estimated a priori by a statistical power calculation that used estimates of expected effect sizes and sample standard deviations obtained from previous studies in this lab, with the significance level of 5 % and a statistical power of 80 % (1 − β = 0.8).” In both cases, no post-hoc statistical power calculation was performed because observed effect sizes and their uncertainty bounds supersede any a priori estimates, and because “Post-hoc power estimates … have been shown to be logically invalid and practically misleading”; quotation from: Dziak JJ, Dierker LC, Abar B. The Interpretation of Statistical Power after the Data have been Gathered. Curr Psychol. 2020 Jun;39(3):870-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0018-1 Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 01 Nov 2024 Kenneth Hunt , rehaLab - the Laboratory for Rehabilitation Engineering ,Institute for Human Centred Engineering HuCE School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences,, Biel/Bienne, 2501, Switzerland 01 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented ... Continue reading Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented as noted below and submitted using “track changes” in the revised manuscript. With best wishes. Yours faithfully The authors Reviewer #1 Report and Response : Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak Firstly, I would like to thank for inviting me as a Referee of this study. This research touches an important topic of heart rate during exercise and provide useful piece of knowledge for clinicians and sport practitioners. I am providing my comments for the Authors below. RESPONSE : Dziękuję bardzo—and thank you very much for your helpful comments, especially for your observation of relevance for clinicians and sport practitioners. Major issues: I suggest more precise description of the rationale for this study from clinical and physiological perspective. Perhaps, an additional paragraph in the introduction would be welcome. Similarly, there is a lack of information about practical applications of this study in the discussion. RESPONSE : Thank you for these suggestions. We agree it is very useful to provide more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications. To address both of these points, we have added the following paragraph at the start of the Introduction: “Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous [10]. The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures.” New reference [10]: 10. Riebe D, Ehrman JK, Liguori G, Magal M, editors. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2018. Minor issues: I suggest providing a brief description of the study population in the abstract. RESPONSE : Regrettably, the Abstract already has 298 words, with a limit of 300 words. But we have provided more detailed information on the study population in the main text as noted below. If the Authors will meet the word limit, I strongly recommend enhancing the information about study group (their demographics, fitness level etc.) and testing protocols. RESPONSE : Thank you for this suggestion. As mentioned in the text, this is a retrospective analysis of data from two previously-published studies. We pointed out that full information regarding the study groups and testing protocols can be found in the corresponding citations, viz. references [3] and [4], as follows: “Full details of experimental procedures employed for data collection in the preceding treadmill and cycle ergometer investigations can be found in the respective publications. 3 , 4 Essential elements of the protocols are summarised in this Brief Report.” Nevertheless, we do agree it would be helpful to the reader to have more information in the current article, for which reason we have added more details to the Methods, as follows: “For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 3 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 4 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness.” Did the Authors evaluate sample size to ensure credibility of their analysis and conclusions? There are only 38 participants in this study. RESPONSE : Thank you for this important query. As noted above, the 38 participants came from two previous studies: a pilot treadmill study, [3], with 11 participants, and a cycle ergometer study, [4], with 27 participants. For the treadmill study, the sample size of n = 11 was chosen in accordance with the requirements of pilot studies, and no formal statistical power analysis was conducted. For the cycle ergometer study, an a priori statistical power and sample size estimate was included in the study protocol that was approved by our ethics committee. The details can be found in reference [4], as follows: “The sample size of n = 27 participants was estimated a priori by a statistical power calculation that used estimates of expected effect sizes and sample standard deviations obtained from previous studies in this lab, with the significance level of 5 % and a statistical power of 80 % (1 − β = 0.8).” In both cases, no post-hoc statistical power calculation was performed because observed effect sizes and their uncertainty bounds supersede any a priori estimates, and because “Post-hoc power estimates … have been shown to be logically invalid and practically misleading”; quotation from: Dziak JJ, Dierker LC, Abar B. The Interpretation of Statistical Power after the Data have been Gathered. Curr Psychol. 2020 Jun;39(3):870-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0018-1 Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented as noted below and submitted using “track changes” in the revised manuscript. With best wishes. Yours faithfully The authors Reviewer #1 Report and Response : Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak Firstly, I would like to thank for inviting me as a Referee of this study. This research touches an important topic of heart rate during exercise and provide useful piece of knowledge for clinicians and sport practitioners. I am providing my comments for the Authors below. RESPONSE : Dziękuję bardzo—and thank you very much for your helpful comments, especially for your observation of relevance for clinicians and sport practitioners. Major issues: I suggest more precise description of the rationale for this study from clinical and physiological perspective. Perhaps, an additional paragraph in the introduction would be welcome. Similarly, there is a lack of information about practical applications of this study in the discussion. RESPONSE : Thank you for these suggestions. We agree it is very useful to provide more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications. To address both of these points, we have added the following paragraph at the start of the Introduction: “Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous [10]. The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures.” New reference [10]: 10. Riebe D, Ehrman JK, Liguori G, Magal M, editors. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2018. Minor issues: I suggest providing a brief description of the study population in the abstract. RESPONSE : Regrettably, the Abstract already has 298 words, with a limit of 300 words. But we have provided more detailed information on the study population in the main text as noted below. If the Authors will meet the word limit, I strongly recommend enhancing the information about study group (their demographics, fitness level etc.) and testing protocols. RESPONSE : Thank you for this suggestion. As mentioned in the text, this is a retrospective analysis of data from two previously-published studies. We pointed out that full information regarding the study groups and testing protocols can be found in the corresponding citations, viz. references [3] and [4], as follows: “Full details of experimental procedures employed for data collection in the preceding treadmill and cycle ergometer investigations can be found in the respective publications. 3 , 4 Essential elements of the protocols are summarised in this Brief Report.” Nevertheless, we do agree it would be helpful to the reader to have more information in the current article, for which reason we have added more details to the Methods, as follows: “For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 3 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 4 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness.” Did the Authors evaluate sample size to ensure credibility of their analysis and conclusions? There are only 38 participants in this study. RESPONSE : Thank you for this important query. As noted above, the 38 participants came from two previous studies: a pilot treadmill study, [3], with 11 participants, and a cycle ergometer study, [4], with 27 participants. For the treadmill study, the sample size of n = 11 was chosen in accordance with the requirements of pilot studies, and no formal statistical power analysis was conducted. For the cycle ergometer study, an a priori statistical power and sample size estimate was included in the study protocol that was approved by our ethics committee. The details can be found in reference [4], as follows: “The sample size of n = 27 participants was estimated a priori by a statistical power calculation that used estimates of expected effect sizes and sample standard deviations obtained from previous studies in this lab, with the significance level of 5 % and a statistical power of 80 % (1 − β = 0.8).” In both cases, no post-hoc statistical power calculation was performed because observed effect sizes and their uncertainty bounds supersede any a priori estimates, and because “Post-hoc power estimates … have been shown to be logically invalid and practically misleading”; quotation from: Dziak JJ, Dierker LC, Abar B. The Interpretation of Statistical Power after the Data have been Gathered. Curr Psychol. 2020 Jun;39(3):870-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0018-1 Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 06 Aug 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 2 (revision) 01 Nov 24 read read Version 1 06 Aug 24 read read Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak , Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Lauren Miutz , University of Dayton, Dayton, USA; University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Miutz L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 09 Nov 2024 | for Version 2 Lauren Miutz , Department of Health and Sport Science, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, USA; Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada 0 Views copyright © 2024 Miutz L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Appreciate the authors addressing my previous comments and adding the additional information to the article. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Exercise Physiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Miutz L. Peer Review Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173966.r336843) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2#referee-response-336843 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Kasiak P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 06 Nov 2024 | for Version 2 Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak , Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland 0 Views copyright © 2024 Kasiak P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I'm grateful for the Authors for applying necessary revision. I also congratulate them on their article. Finally, please reconsider adding a proposed reference. References 1. Kasiak PS, Wiecha S, Cieśliński I, Takken T, et al.: Validity of the Maximal Heart Rate Prediction Models among Runners and Cyclists. J Clin Med . 2023; 12 (8). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Sports Cardiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Kasiak PS. Peer Review Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.173966.r336844) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2#referee-response-336844 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Miutz L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 24 Oct 2024 | for Version 1 Lauren Miutz , Department of Health and Sport Science, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, USA; Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada 0 Views copyright © 2024 Miutz L. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Brief description of article: Reanalyzed retrospective data to better identify a model of best fit for heart rate changes during exercise. The present study included a zero point and a pure delay in the heart rate model. Relevance: Although the research reported that the model including dead time (compared to the model without dead time) provided a “better fit,” is the this clinically meaningful. The researchers reported a change in percentage of fit, however in the field of clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology, heart rate (especially regarding exercise) is largely provided as a range. Thus, are the percentages provided, between the two models, clinically relevant within the field. Major points: • Additional detail around the sample is needed, simply referencing the original work is not sufficient. • Information around resting average heart rate (cycle and treadmill) and average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) should be provided. Minor point: • Training status of the participants should be reports as heart rate (and potentially the delay and amount of dead time) are often linked to one’s training status, especially aerobic capacity. • Interesting findings, however when reanalyzing retrospective data the researchers need to be careful the questions being answered is relevant and that adequate detail is provided to the reader, regardless of their knowledge surrounding the original study/data set. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Exercise physiology; cerebrovascular physiology; sport-related concussion & exertional measures I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 01 Nov 2024 Kenneth Hunt, rehaLab - the Laboratory for Rehabilitation Engineering ,Institute for Human Centred Engineering HuCE School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences,, Biel/Bienne, 2501, Switzerland Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented as noted below and submitted using “track changes” in the revised manuscript. With best wishes. Yours faithfully The authors Reviewer #2 Report and Response : Lauren Miutz Brief description of article: Reanalyzed retrospective data to better identify a model of best fit for heart rate changes during exercise. The present study included a zero point and a pure delay in the heart rate model. RESPONSE : We would like to thank you for your careful reading of our article and for your constructive comments. Please find below our point-by-point response. Relevance: Although the research reported that the model including dead time (compared to the model without dead time) provided a “better fit,” is the this [sic] clinically meaningful. The researchers reported a change in percentage of fit, however in the field of clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology, heart rate (especially regarding exercise) is largely provided as a range. Thus, are the percentages provided, between the two models, clinically relevant within the field. RESPONSE : Thank you for this remark regarding relevance for clinical or non-clinical exercise physiology. In a similar vein, Reviewer #1 requested more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications. To address these points, we added the following paragraph at the start of the Introduction: “Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous [10]. The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures.” Furthermore, we would like to remark that, in the field of systems and control engineering—which is the field within which we authors work—model fidelity is usually provided either in absolute terms as a root-mean-square error (RMSE) or as a normalised RMSE, i.e. model fit, expressed in percent. We cannot definitively answer the question of whether the reported improvement in fit will be relevant to researchers or practitioners in other fields (e.g. exercise physiologists) and must leave it up to colleagues in those fields to assess our findings for themselves. Major points: • Additional detail around the sample is needed, simply referencing the original work is not sufficient. RESPONSE : Thank you for this recommendation (a similar request was made by Reviewer #1). We do agree that it would be helpful to the reader to have more information in the current article. As noted in our response to Reviewer #1, we have added more details to the Methods, as follows: “For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 3 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 4 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness.” • Information around resting average heart rate (cycle and treadmill) and average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) should be provided. RESPONSE : Thank you for this suggestion. We have added information on average maximal heart rate (cycle and treadmill) to the Results section, as quoted below. Unfortunately, we cannot provide average resting heart rate because recording was started at the onset of the PRBS input signal: resting heart rate was not recorded (resting HR played no role in the analysis). Text added to Results: “Average maximal heart rate for the treadmill was 158.4 bpm; for the cycle ergometer it was 140.2 bpm (this is in line with our setting the mean target heart rate for the CE to be 20 bpm lower than for the TM in order to achieve a similar level of perceived exertion [9]).” Minor point: • Training status of the participants should be reports [sic] as heart rate (and potentially the delay and amount of dead time) are often linked to one’s training status, especially aerobic capacity. RESPONSE : Thank you for this comment. As noted above, we have now provided information regarding participants’ training status: “Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week) …”. Beyond this requirement (it was a formal inclusion criterion), we did not record any further information in this regard. • Interesting findings, however when reanalyzing retrospective data the researchers need to be careful the questions being answered is relevant and that adequate detail is provided to the reader, regardless of their knowledge surrounding the original study/data set. RESPONSE : Many thanks for your observations, which are valuable. We hope that our responses and the corresponding revision of the manuscript now provide adequate detail independent of the original publications. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Miutz L. Peer Review Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168288.r331353) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v1#referee-response-331353 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Kasiak P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 27 Aug 2024 | for Version 1 Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak , Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland 0 Views copyright © 2024 Kasiak P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Firstly, I would like to thank for inviting me as a Referee of this study. This research touches an important topic of heart rate during exercise and provide useful piece of knowledge for clinicians and sport practitioners. I am providing my comments for the Authors below. Major issues: I suggest more precise description of the rationale for this study from clinical and physiological perspective. Perhaps, an additional paragraph in the introduction would be welcome. Similarly, there is a lack of information about practical applications of this study in the discussion. Minor issues: I suggest providing a brief description of the study population in the abstract. If the Authors will meet the word limit, I strongly recommend enhancing the information about study group (their demographics, fitness level etc.) and testing protocols. Did the Authors evaluate sample size to ensure credibility of their analysis and conclusions? There are only 38 participants in this study. In summary, this study is interesting. Further analysis of the preliminary report would be helpful for deep understanding of heart rate response to exercises. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Sports Cardiology I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 01 Nov 2024 Kenneth Hunt, rehaLab - the Laboratory for Rehabilitation Engineering ,Institute for Human Centred Engineering HuCE School of Engineering and Computer Science, Bern University of Applied Sciences,, Biel/Bienne, 2501, Switzerland Dear Reviewers Many thanks for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We are pleased to provide a point-by-point response below. Changes to the manuscript have been implemented as noted below and submitted using “track changes” in the revised manuscript. With best wishes. Yours faithfully The authors Reviewer #1 Report and Response : Przemysław Seweryn Kasiak Firstly, I would like to thank for inviting me as a Referee of this study. This research touches an important topic of heart rate during exercise and provide useful piece of knowledge for clinicians and sport practitioners. I am providing my comments for the Authors below. RESPONSE : Dziękuję bardzo—and thank you very much for your helpful comments, especially for your observation of relevance for clinicians and sport practitioners. Major issues: I suggest more precise description of the rationale for this study from clinical and physiological perspective. Perhaps, an additional paragraph in the introduction would be welcome. Similarly, there is a lack of information about practical applications of this study in the discussion. RESPONSE : Thank you for these suggestions. We agree it is very useful to provide more information regarding the clinical and physiological perspectives, and practical applications. To address both of these points, we have added the following paragraph at the start of the Introduction: “Heart rate is an easy-to-measure physiological variable that can be used to characterise the intensity of exercise, both quantitatively and qualitatively using categories such as light, moderate and vigorous [10]. The ability to regulate heart rate during exercise using feedback control would therefore allow accurate prescription of training regimes in both clinical and non-clinical settings. Since feedback controllers require a model of the dynamic response of heart rate during exercise, it is important to first consider the fidelity of different model structures.” New reference [10]: 10. Riebe D, Ehrman JK, Liguori G, Magal M, editors. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. 10th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2018. Minor issues: I suggest providing a brief description of the study population in the abstract. RESPONSE : Regrettably, the Abstract already has 298 words, with a limit of 300 words. But we have provided more detailed information on the study population in the main text as noted below. If the Authors will meet the word limit, I strongly recommend enhancing the information about study group (their demographics, fitness level etc.) and testing protocols. RESPONSE : Thank you for this suggestion. As mentioned in the text, this is a retrospective analysis of data from two previously-published studies. We pointed out that full information regarding the study groups and testing protocols can be found in the corresponding citations, viz. references [3] and [4], as follows: “Full details of experimental procedures employed for data collection in the preceding treadmill and cycle ergometer investigations can be found in the respective publications. 3 , 4 Essential elements of the protocols are summarised in this Brief Report.” Nevertheless, we do agree it would be helpful to the reader to have more information in the current article, for which reason we have added more details to the Methods, as follows: “For both exercise modalities, healthy, able-bodied participants exercised at moderate-to-vigorous intensity: in the treadmill analysis 3 there were 11 participants (8 male, 3 female; overall mean age 32.5 years, mean body mass 75.5 kg, mean height 1.79 m); for the cycle ergometer 4 there were 27 participants (20 male, 7 female; overall mean age 30.8 years, mean body mass 76.3 kg, mean height 1.79 m). Participants were required to be regular exercisers (30-min bouts, 3 times per week), non-smokers, and to be free of injury and illness.” Did the Authors evaluate sample size to ensure credibility of their analysis and conclusions? There are only 38 participants in this study. RESPONSE : Thank you for this important query. As noted above, the 38 participants came from two previous studies: a pilot treadmill study, [3], with 11 participants, and a cycle ergometer study, [4], with 27 participants. For the treadmill study, the sample size of n = 11 was chosen in accordance with the requirements of pilot studies, and no formal statistical power analysis was conducted. For the cycle ergometer study, an a priori statistical power and sample size estimate was included in the study protocol that was approved by our ethics committee. The details can be found in reference [4], as follows: “The sample size of n = 27 participants was estimated a priori by a statistical power calculation that used estimates of expected effect sizes and sample standard deviations obtained from previous studies in this lab, with the significance level of 5 % and a statistical power of 80 % (1 − β = 0.8).” In both cases, no post-hoc statistical power calculation was performed because observed effect sizes and their uncertainty bounds supersede any a priori estimates, and because “Post-hoc power estimates … have been shown to be logically invalid and practically misleading”; quotation from: Dziak JJ, Dierker LC, Abar B. The Interpretation of Statistical Power after the Data have been Gathered. Curr Psychol. 2020 Jun;39(3):870-877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0018-1 View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Kasiak PS. Peer Review Report For: Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle ergometer exercise: the role of model zeros and dead time [version 2; peer review: 2 approved] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :894 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.168288.r317159) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v1#referee-response-317159 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Identification of heart rate dynamics during...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Hunt KJ and Wang H'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894", templates : { twitter : "Identification of heart rate dynamics during treadmill and cycle.... Hunt KJ and Wang H, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-894/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/153397/173966") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "173966"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "336844": 3, "324686": 0, "324687": 0, "336843": 4, "324692": 0, "324693": 0, "324694": 0, "324695": 0, "324688": 0, "324689": 0, "324690": 0, "324691": 0, "331353": 12, "331352": 0, "321381": 0, "321382": 0, "321383": 0, "317159": 31, "317164": 0, "321388": 0, "317165": 0, "321389": 0, "317166": 0, "321390": 0, "317167": 0, "317160": 0, "321384": 0, "317161": 0, "321385": 0, "317162": 0, "321386": 0, "317163": 0, "321387": 0, "312821": 0, "312822": 0, "312823": 0, "317168": 0, "312828": 0, "312829": 0, "312830": 0, "312824": 0, "312825": 0, "312826": 0, "312827": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "43e6cba4-f496-4833-9bb5-c6f2b5c6d713"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });