Dyspnea induced by inspiratory loading limits dual-tasking in healthy young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dyspnea is a common and multidimensional experience of healthy adults and those with respiratory disorders. Due to its neural processing, it may limit or interfere with cognition, which may be examined with a dual-task paradigm. The aim of this study was to compare single-task performance of Stroop Colour and Word Test (SCWT) or inspiratory threshold loading (ITL) to their combined dual-task performance. Secondly, whether mood was related to dyspnea or cognitive performance was also evaluated. MATERIALS & METHODS: A virtual pre-post design examined single (SCWT and ITL) and dual-task (SCWT+ITL) performance. For ITL, a Threshold Trainer™ was used to elicit a "somewhat severe" rating of dyspnea. The SCWT required participants to indicate whether a colour-word was congruent or incongruent with its semantic meaning. The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) was completed to assess mood. Breathing frequency, Borg dyspnea rating, and breathing endurance time were ascertained. RESULTS: Thirty young healthy adults (15F, 15M; median age = 24, IQR [23-26] years) completed the study. SCWT+ITL had lower SCWT accuracy compared to SCWT alone (98.6%, [97.1-100.0] vs 99.5%, [98.6-100.0]; p = 0.009). Endurance time was not different between ITL and SCWT+ITL (14.5 minutes, [6.9-15.0]) vs 13.7 minutes, [6.1-15.0]; p = 0.59). DASS-21 scores positively correlated with dyspnea scores during ITL (rho = 0.583, p<0.001) and SCWT+ITL (rho = 0.592, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ITL significantly reduced dual-task performance in healthy young adults. Lower mood was associated with greater perceived dyspnea during single and dual-task ITL. Considering the prevalence of dyspnea in respiratory disorders, the findings of this dual task paradigm warrant further exploration to inform dyspnea management during daily activities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".