Effects on Cognitive Functioning of Acute, Subacute and Repeated Exposures to High Altitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Neurocognitive functions are affected by high altitude, however the altitude effects of acclimatization and repeated exposures are unclear. We investigated the effects of acute, subacute and repeated exposure to 5050m on cognition among altitude-naïve participants compared to control subjects tested at low altitude. METHODS Twenty-one altitude-naïve individuals (25.3±3.8 years, 13 females) were exposed to 5050m for one week (Cycle 1) and re-exposed after a week of rest at sea-level (Cycle 2). Baseline (BL, 520m), acute (Day 1, HA1) and acclimatization (Day 6, HA6, 5050m) measurements were taken in both cycles. Seventeen control subjects (24.9±2.6 years, 12 females) were tested over a similar period in Calgary, Canada (1103m). The Reaction Time (RTI), Attention Switching Task (AST), Rapid Visual Processing (RVP) and One Touch Stockings of Cambridge (OTS) tasks were administered and outcomes were expressed in milliseconds/frequencies. Lake Louise Score (LLS) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded. RESULTS In both cycles, no significant changes were found with acute exposure on the Attention Switching Task (AST) total score, mean latency and SD. Statistically significant changes were found upon acclimatization solely in the altitude group, with increased AST Mean Latency [HA1 (588±92) vs HA6 (526±91), p < 0.001] and Latency SD [HA1 (189±86) vs HA6 (135±65), p < 0.001]. No statistically significant differences were present in the control group. When entering Acute SpO2 (HA1-BL), Acclimatization SpO2 (HA6-BL) and LLS score as covariates for both cycle, the effects of acclimatization on AST outcomes disappeared indicating that the changes were partially explained by SpO2 and LLS. The changes in AST Mean Latency [∆BL (- 61.2±7.2) vs ∆HA6 (-28.0 ± 58), p = 0.005)] and the changes in Latency SD [∆BL (-28.4±41.2) vs ∆HA6 (-0.2235±34.8), p = 0.007)] across the two cycles decreased with acclimatization. However, the percent changes did not differ between cycles. These results indicate independent effects of altitude across repeated exposures. CONCLUSION Sustained attention is impaired at altitude and improves with acclimatization. The observed changes are associated, in part, with AMS score and SpO2. The gains in cognition with acclimatization during a first exposure are not carried over to repeated exposures.
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".