MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is Cognitive Function Impaired while Working in a Climate Chamber at 30°C in Fire Fighters?

2015· article· en· W2469247705 on OpenAlexaffabout
F. Michael Williams-Bell, Steven Passmore, Tom M. McLellan, Bernadette Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFirefightingTreadmillCognitionCore temperatureWorking memoryHeat stressEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceVigilance (psychology)AudiologyPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyCartographyGeographyAnimal scienceCognitive psychologyAnesthesiaPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Firefighting requires cognitive abilities, such as attention, vigilance, spatial awareness, decision making, and air management, under extreme life-threatening working conditions. To date, cognitive function during exertional heat stress in firefighters has been conducted utilizing simple mental performance tasks, such as reaction time, or lacking cognitive assessments while core temperature was increasing to detect any changes. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of thermal stress on various aspects of cognitive function during moderate-intensity treadmill walking. METHODS: Nineteen fire fighters were tested (age 35.6 ± 8.7 years, BMI 27.3 ± 3.2 kg.m-1, body fat 16.7 ± 5.8 %, VO2peak = 45.2 ± 5.5 mL.kg-1.min-1). Core temperature, skin temperature, and heart rate were continuously monitored and 5 mL.kg-1 of water was provided throughout the protocol. Firefighters walked on a motorized treadmill at 4.5 km.h-1 and 2.5% grade, in a climate chamber controlled at 30 °C and 50% relative humidity for 84.3 ± 13.4 min. Cognitive function was tested using the CANTABeclipse battery (spatial working memory - SWM, reaction time - RTI, rapid visual information processing - RVP, spatial span - SSP, and paired associates learning - PAL) at baseline, immediately following completion of exercise, and after attaining a hand and forearm immersion recovery core temperature of 37.8 °C, while SSP and PAL were also evaluated during exercise when core temperatures of 37.8, 38.5, and 39.0 °C were attained. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, post-tests for RVP revealed improvements in correct rejections (262.9 ± 8.6 vs 267.2 ± 5.9 rejections; p < 0.05), latency (380.3 ± 83.7 vs 334.9 ± 42.2 ms; p < 0.05), and simple reaction time (286.8 ± 35.1 vs 270.0 ± 31.2 ms; p < 0.05), while performance on the PAL test showed significantly more errors during the final level (5.7 ± 5.5 vs 9.6 ± 8.7 errors; p < 0.05) when core temperature reached 38.5°C. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, it appears that visual memory and new learning is impaired when core temperature reaches 38.5°C without decrements in spatial information, sustained attention, or working memory capacity when the average rate of increase in core temperature is 0.87 ± 0.24 °C.h-1. This research was supported by the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207