Mild body cooling impairs attention via distraction from skin cooling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many contemporary workers are routinely exposed to mild cold stress, which may compromise mental function and lead to accidents. A study investigated the effect of mild body cooling of 1.0 degree C rectal temperature (Tre) on vigilance (i.e. sustained attention) and the orienting of spatial attention (i.e. spatially selective processing of visual information). Vigilance and spatial attention tests were administered to 14 healthy males and six females at four stages (pre-immersion, deltaTre = 0, -0.5 and - 1.0 degree C ) of a gradual, head-out immersion cooling session (18-25 deltaC water), and in four time-matched stages of a contrast session, in which participants sat in an empty tub and no cooling took place. In the spatial attention test, target discrimination times were similar for all stages of the contrast session, but increased significantly in the cooling phase upon immersion (deltaTre = 0 degrees C), with no further increases at deltaTre = -0.5 and - 1.0 degree C. Despite global response slowing, cooling did not affect the normal pattern of spatial orienting. In the vigilance test, the variability of detection time was adversely affected in the cooling but not the contrast trials: variability increased at immersion but did not increase further with additional cooling. These findings suggest that attentional impairments are more closely linked to the distracting effects of cold skin temperature than decreases in body core temperature.
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.
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 it