Influence of an Exercise-Specific Face Mask on Physiological and Perceptual Responses to Graded Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of exercise-specific face masks (ESFMs) in aerobically fit individuals on physiological, perceptual, respiratory, and performance responses remains unclear. How ESFMs mitigate exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) is also unknown. Thus, this study aimed to determine how an ESFM altered within-exercise physiological, perceptual, respiratory, and performance responses to graded treadmill exercise. Twenty-four individuals (11 females) completed a discontinuous graded exercise test on a treadmill under two conditions (ESFM and unmasked). Physiological, respiratory function, and perceptual measures were assessed. Performance was determined by time to exhaustion. Statistical analyses included linear mixed-effects modeling, repeated measures analysis of variance, and pairwise comparisons using an alpha value of 0.05. ESFM use significantly impaired performance (median = -150.5 s) and decreased arterial oxygen saturation at maximal intensity (mean = -3.7%). Perceptions of air hunger and work of breathing were elevated across submaximal and maximal intensities. Perceived exertion and breathing discomfort were significantly elevated submaximally but not maximally. Spirometry measures were not significantly different at termination but were significantly improved at submaximal intensities in participants with and without EIB. ESFM use in fit individuals increased perceptual discomfort, impaired performance, and augmented arterial desaturation. Respiratory function improvements were observed but were accompanied by adverse perceptual sensations. Despite this, performance impairments may limit the real-world utility of ESFMs for athletes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".