Do elite breath-hold divers suffer from mild short-term memory impairments?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeated apneas are associated with severe hypoxemia that may ultimately lead to loss of consciousness in some breath-hold divers. Despite increasing number of practitioners, the relationship between apnea-induced hypoxia and neurocognitive functions is still poorly understood in the sport of free diving. To shed light onto this phenomenon, we examined the impact of long-term breath-hold diving training on attentional processing, short-term memory, and long-term mnesic and executive functions. Thirty-six men matched for age, height, and weight were separated into the following 3 groups: (i) 12 elite breath-hold divers (EBHD), mean static apnea best time 371 s, 105 months mean apnea experience; (ii) 12 novice breath-hold divers, mean best time 243 s, 8.75 months mean apnea experience; and (iii) 12 physical education students with no breath-hold diving experience; all of these participants performed varied written and computerized neuropsychological tasks. Compared with the 2 other groups, the EBHD group was slower to complete the interference card during a Stroop test (F[1,33] = 4.70, p < 0.05), and presented more errors on the interference card (F[1,33] = 2.96, p < 0.05) and a lower total interference score (F[1,33] = 5.64, p < 0.05). The time to complete the interference card test was positively correlated with maximal static apnea duration (r = 0.73, p < 0.05) and the number of years of breath-hold diving training (r = 0.79, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that breath-hold diving training over several years may cause mild, but persistent, short-term memory impairments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".