Effect of facemask use on cognitive function during a maximal running aerobic fitness test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The aim of the present randomized, crossover study was to determine the physiological and cognitive function responses while wearing a facemask during a maximal running aerobic fitness test. Methods: Fourteen healthy, nonsmoking physical education students (age = 17.5 years, height = 1.72 m, body mass = 70.4 kg) volunteered to participate in this study. They carried out a 20 m multistage fitness test (MSFT) while wearing or not a cloth facemask on two separate occasions performed in random order. The “Rating of Perceived Exertion” (RPE) and the d2 test for visual attention were administered and assessed before and immediately after the MSFT for both conditions (with or without a facemask). Results: When wearing the facemask, the participants exhibited lower maximal aerobic speed (p = 0.039), VO2max (p = 0.039), distance covered during the MSFT (p = 0.057), and concentration performance (p < 0.001), when compared with the control situation (without facemask). Moreover, they made more errors compared with the control condition (p = 0.021). The use of a cloth facemask during maximal endurance running tests (such as the MSFT) reduced VO2max, and measures of cognitive performance as assessed by the test of focused visual attention (the d2 test). This data suggests avoiding using a cloth facemask during maximal aerobic fitness tests, and before any tasks that require a high level of visual attention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".