Effect of a Warm-Up Protocol with and without Facemask-Use against COVID-19 on Cognitive Function: A Pilot, Randomized Counterbalanced, Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to verify the effect of a warm-up protocol with and without facemask-use on cognitive function. The sample was composed of 17 healthy, non-smoking physical education students (age = 17.6 years, height = 1.71 m, and body mass = 69.7 kg). They were randomized to perform 15 min of warm-up exercises, while wearing a cloth facemask (EXP) or no mask (CON) on two separate occasions, with at least 48-h separating conditions. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and d2 Attention assessment were used to verify cognitive function, using a repeated measures general linear model. The warm-up improved cognitive abilities and the results demonstrated significant differences between the EXP vs. CON groups in post-concentration performance (186.06 ± 15.47 EXP-score vs. 178.12 ± 13.66 CON-score), post the total number of errors (23.47 ± 14.50 EXP-frequency < 29.06 ± 13.74 CON-frequency), and in the post RPE (6.0 ± 1.37 EXP-index > 4.7 ± 0.85 CON-index). Wearing a cloth facemask caused positive effects on cognitive function. This data suggests that wearing a cloth facemask during warm-up may stimulate/improve the cognitive function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".