The effects of acute dopamine reuptake inhibition on cognitive function during passive hyperthermia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dopamine activity can modulate physical performance in the heat, but less is known about its effects on cognition during thermal stress. Twelves males completed a randomized, double-blinded protocol consisting of oral ingestion of 20 mg of methylphenidate (MPH) or placebo (lactose pill) during passive heating using a water-perfused suit (water temperature ∼49 °C). To identify the impact of peripheral versus central thermal strain, a cognitive test battery was completed at 4 different thermal states: baseline (BASE; 37.2 ± 0.6 °C core, 32.9 ± 0.7 °C skin), neutral core-hot skin (NC-HS; 37.2 ± 0.3 °C, 37.4 ± 0.3 °C), hyperthermic core-hot skin (HC-HS; 38.7 ± 0.4 °C, 38.7 ± 0.2 °C), and hyperthermic core-cooled skin (HC-CS; 38.5 ± 0.4 °C, 35.1 ± 0.8 °C). The cognitive test battery consisted of the 2-back task (i.e., working memory), set-shifting (i.e., executive function), Groton Maze Learning Task (i.e., executive function) and detection task (i.e., psychomotor processing). MPH led to significantly higher heart rates (∼5–15 b·min−1) at BASE, NC-HS, and HC-HS (all p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the number of errors made on each task (all p < 0.05). Participants were significantly faster (p < 0.05) on the set-shifting task in the HC-HS timepoint, irrespective of drug condition (p > 0.05). In summary, we demonstrated that 20 mg of MPH did not significantly alter cognitive function during either normothermia or moderate hyperthermia. Novelty: Twenty milligrams of MPH did not significantly alter cognitive function during passive heat stress. MPH led to significant higher heart rates (∼5–15 b·min−1) in thermoneutral and during passive heat stress. Future studies are needed to determine the mechanisms of why MPH improves physical but not cognitive performance during heat stress.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".