Caffeine intake modulates the functioning of the attentional networks depending on consumption habits and acute exercise demands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consume of stimulants (as caffeine) is very usual in different contexts where the performers have to take quick and accurate decisions during physical effort. Decision-making processes are mediated by the attentional networks. An experiment was carried out to examine the effect of caffeine intake on attention (alerting, orienting, and executive control) as a function of consumption habit under two physical exertion conditions (rest vs. aerobic exercise). Two groups of participants with different caffeine consumption profiles (moderate consumers vs. low consumers) performed the Attention Network Test-Interactions under four different conditions regarding activity (rest vs. exercise) and intake (caffeine vs. placebo). Results showed that whereas exercise led to faster reaction times (RT) in all cases, caffeine intake accelerated RT but only at rest and in moderate caffeine consumers. More importantly, caffeine intake reduced the alertness effect in moderate consumers only at the rest condition. No interactions between Intake and Activity were observed in the other attentional networks, with exercise reducing orienting independently of caffeine intake, which suggests that physical exercise and caffeine are different modulators of attention but can interact. Caffeine intake had differential effects on reaction speed at rest and during physical exercise depending on the individual consumption habit. On the basis of these finding it seems that mainly alertness is modulated differently by internal and external "arousing" conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".