Fig. 3: Load magnitude perception.
Group mean data with 95% confidence intervals for the sham group (n = 10; left panels) and active group (n = 14; right panels). Dotted trendlines represent linear or logarithmic best fits of the mean data for each group and not of the coefficient estimates from the mixed model analyses (see Table 4). Peak inspiratory pressure (Pipeak) is negatively increasing and represents the change (Δ) relative to the previous unloaded breath. A Borg effort rating increased with added resistance in both treatment groups. The decrease in mean Borg rating due to the training intervention (pre vs. post) was similar between the sham and active groups when evaluated at the mean log-transformed added resistance (p = 0.68). B Pipeak increased with added resistance. Mean Pipeak was greater post training in the active group (p < 0.001) but there was no effect of training intervention on mean Pipeak in the sham group (p = 0.61). C Pipeak divided by maximal inspiratory pressure (Pimax) to reflect contraction intensity. D. The increase in Borg effort rating with increasing negative Pipeak was less in the active group after the training intervention (p = 0.003) but there was no change in the sham group (p = 0.13). E There was no effect of training intervention on slope magnitude for the relationship between Borg effort rating and contraction intensity (%Pimax) in both the active (p = 0.92) and sham (p = 0.61) groups.
