The Impact of Moderate and High Intensity Cardiovascular Exertion on Sub-Elite Soccer Referee’s Cognitive Performance: A Lab-Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soccer referees represent a specialized population who are required to perform decisional or perceptual tasks during physical exertion. Recent studies have demonstrated that submaximal acute exercise has a positive impact on cognitive performance. However, less is known about the impact of more strenuous exertion on cognitive performance. This study assessed the effect of moderate and maximal intensity exercise exertion on a cognitive performance in sub-elite soccer referees. Twelve experienced soccer referees (4 female, 8 male) were recruited. Data were collected on 2 separate days. Baseline fitness level was assessed by a standardized aerobic capacity test (VO2max Test) on Day 1, along with practice trials of the Stroop Color Word Test (Stroop Test) for evaluating cognitive performance. On Day 2, cognitive performance was assessed before, during, and after an incremental intensity exercise protocol based on the Fédération International de Football Association (FIFA) referee fitness test. Relative to results obtained at rest performance on the Stroop Test improved at moderate exertion and at maximal exertion during the modified FIFA fitness test (F = 18.97, p = .005). Mean time to completion (in seconds) of the interference Stroop task significantly improved (p < .05) between rest and moderate exertion [-3.0 ± 3.0 seconds] and between rest and maximal exertion [-4.8 ± 2.6 seconds]. In summary, we observed that cognitive performance was found to improve when sub-elite soccer referees performed moderate and maximal exercise relative to results obtained at rest. It is possible that referees focus their attention to improve goal-oriented processing in the brain during physical exertion.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".