The Effects of Caffeine on Arousal, Response Time, Accuracy, and Performance in Division I Collegiate Fencers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doyle, TP, Lutz, RS, Pellegrino, JK, Sanders, DJ, and Arent, SM. The effects of caffeine on arousal, response time, accuracy, and performance in Division I collegiate fencers. J Strength Cond Res 30(11): 3228-3235, 2016-Caffeine has displayed ergogenic effects on aerobic performance. However, sports requiring precision and quick reaction may also be impacted by central nervous system arousal because of caffeine consumption. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of caffeine on arousal, response time (RT), and accuracy during a simulated fencing practice. Using a randomized, within-subjects, placebo-controlled, double-blind design, Division I male and female college fencers (N = 13; 69.1 ± 3.5 kg) were administered caffeine doses of 0, 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, 6.0, or 7.5 mg·kg during separate testing days. Performance was assessed via RT and accuracy to a 4-choice reaction task. A total of 25 trials were performed each day using a random 2- to 8-s delay between trials. Arousal was assessed using the activation-deactivation adjective check list. Results of repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance revealed a significant dose effect (p = 0.02) on performance. Follow-up analyses indicated this was due to a significant effect for RT (p = 0.03), with the dose-response curve exhibiting a quadratic relationship. Response time was significantly faster (p < 0.01) for the 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0 mg·kg conditions than for the placebo condition. Results also indicated a significant dose effect for composite RT + accuracy performance (p < 0.01). The dose-response curve was again quadratic, with performance beginning to deteriorate at 7.5 mg·kg. Energetic arousal, tiredness, tension, and calmness all significantly changed as a function of caffeine dose (p ≤ 0.05). Based on these results, caffeine improves RT and overall performance in fencers, particularly as doses increase up to 4.5-6.0 mg·kg. Above this level, performance begins to deteriorate, consistent with an "inverted-U" model of arousal and performance.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".