Cognitive interference of respiratory<i>versus</i>limb muscle dual tasking in healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Inspiratory threshold loading (ITL) and associated dyspnoea have been shown to interfere with cognition during cognitive-motor dual tasking. However, ITL has not been compared with another rhythmic muscle activity, such as lower limb pedalling. While ITL has been shown to interfere with cognition, the mechanism of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) during ITL or other rhythmical muscle dual tasking, has not been elucidated. Given the cognitive interference that arises during ITL, we hypothesise that ITL cognitive-motor dual tasking will result in greater cognitive decrements and increased PFC activity compared with the pedalling cognitive-motor dual task. Methods: 30 healthy participants (16 females; median age 23 (interquartile range 23-24) years) were recruited. They performed five 3-min tasks in a single visit in a random order: single tasks were ITL, pedalling and Stroop task and dual tasks were ITL-Stroop and pedalling-Stroop. Participant's PFC activity was assessed bilaterally using functional near-infrared spectroscopy throughout each task. Single- and dual-task cognitive performance was evaluated by measuring Stroop task reaction time and accuracy. Dyspnoea and rating of perceived exertion were evaluated at the end of each task. Results: ITL-Stroop resulted in greater impairments in reaction time (p<0.001), accuracy (p<0.01) and increased medial/dorsolateral PFC activity (p≤0.006) than pedalling-Stroop. ITL-Stroop elicited greater Borg dyspnoea and rating of perceived exertion than pedalling-Stroop (p<0.001), despite pedalling-Stroop having a greater heart rate response (p<0.001). Conclusion: The heightened cognitive decrements, perceptual response and PFC activity suggest that inspiratory muscle loading and its accompanied dyspnoea results in greater cognitive interference than rhythmic pedalling.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".