Cognition at Altitude: Impairment in Executive and Memory Processes Under Hypoxic Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The negative effect of hypoxia on cognitive function has been well described. However, less has been published regarding cognitive dysfunction resulting from hypoxia produced by exposure to different altitudes. METHODS: We measured short-term and working memory capacity (Digit Span tasks), cognitive flexibility and selective attention (Word-Color Stroop Task), and executive functioning (Trailmaking A and B tests) at baseline and simulated altitudes equal to 17,500 ft (5334 m) and 25,000 ft (7620 m) in order to obtain more information about the role of altitude exposure on cognitive tasks important for optimal functioning in the aviation environment. RESULTS: Behavioral observations indicated that hypoxia was induced at different simulated altitudes. Marked declines in cognitive performance were also observed for all tests at 25,000 ft, with scores indicating greater impairment in this condition relative to others. Subjects also showed greater impairment when scores obtained in the 17,500-ft condition were compared to baseline, although the effects were not as clearly defined relative to the 25,000 vs. baseline contrasts. DISCUSSION: The results of this study suggest that electronic versions of these tests may be useful in screening for acute symptoms of hypoxia and could provide insight into how discrete cognitive processes become impaired with oxygen deprivation at various altitudes. Given that these tests also assess neuropsychological functioning, our results allow for inferences to be made about the effects of hypoxia on human brain functioning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".