Cognitive Performance Before and Following Habituation to Exercise-Induced Hypohydration of 2 and 4% Body Mass in Physically Active Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effect of repeated exposures to hypohydration upon cognitive performance. In a randomized crossover design, ten physically active adults completed two 4-week training blocks, one where they maintained euhydration (EUH) and the other where they were water-restricted (DEH) during walking/running at 55% V.O2max, 40 °C. Three sessions per week were performed: (1) 1 h of exercise, (2) exercise until 2% or (3) 4% of body mass has been lost or replaced. Limited to the first and fourth training week, a 12 min walking/running time-trial was completed following the 2 and 4% exercise bouts. Trail making, the Wisconsin card sort, the Stop signal task, Simple visual reaction time and Corsi block-tapping tests were performed immediately following the time-trials. Body mass loss was maintained < 1% with EUH and reached 2.7 and 4.7% with DEH following the time-trials. Except for a lower percentage of correct responses (% accuracy) during the Wisconsin card sort test (p < 0.05) with DEH compared to EUH, no statistically significant decline in cognitive performance was induced by low and moderate levels of hypohydration. Compared to week 1, no statistical differences in cognitive responses were observed after repeated exposures to hypohydration (all p > 0.05). From a practical perspective, the gains in cognitive performance following training to DEH were mostly unclear, but under certain circumstances, were greater than when EUH was maintained. Based on the battery of cognitive tests used in the current study, we conclude that whether physically active individuals are habituated or not to its effect, exercise-induced hypohydration of 2 and 4% has, in general, no or unclear impact on cognitive performance immediately following exercise. These results encourage further research in this area.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".