MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408497887 · doi:10.1093/ptj/pzaf031

Does Inspiratory Threshold Loading and Visual Tasking Affect Visual Attention Accuracy?

2025· article· en· W4408497887 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven Schan, Yasma Ali-Hassan, Brielle Loebach, Emily O’Quinn, Manjiri Kulkarni, Marine Van Hollebeke, Peter Rassam, Tamires Mori, Dmitry Rozenberg, W. Darlene Reid

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)MedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyVisual analogue scalePerceived exertionTask (project management)AudiologyPsychologyInternal medicineCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Dyspnea is commonly experienced in adults who are young and have different health conditions (asthma, obesity, panic disorders) and may impede not only physical exertion but also cognitive function such as visual attention. To test this, visual attention was evaluated using the Multiple Object Tracking Test (MOT) alone and combined with low or moderate inspiratory threshold loading (ITL). METHODS: Using a pretest-posttest design, we evaluated 25 participants who were healthy and 19 to 31 years old. Visual attention accuracy was quantified using the MOT, wherein participants tracked moving disks on a computer monitor. Participants performed 5 single or dual tasks in random order: MOT; low ITL of 20 cm H2O (ITL20); moderate ITL of 40 cm H2O (ITL40); dual task: MOT plus ITL20 (MOT + ITL20); and dual task: MOT plus ITL40 (MOT + ITL40). Dyspnea intensity measured with the Borg Dyspnea Scale and emotional response measured with the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) were evaluated at baseline and for single and dual tasks. RESULTS: Compared to single task MOT, dual tasks induced lower MOT scores with moderate loads (MOT + ITL40) resulting in lower scores than dual task low ITL (MOT + ITL20). Exertional dyspnea intensity and SAM affective measures increased during ITL and dual tasks compared to baseline. Moreover, higher dual task MOT scores were related to greater inspiratory muscle strength and to more positive affect evaluated by SAM. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals experiencing inspiratory muscle loading and associated dyspnea demonstrated decreased visual attention accuracy, which was accentuated by higher inspiratory loads, lower respiratory muscle strength, and higher emotional response. IMPACT: Although physical activity is often prescribed according to the musculoskeletal or cardiovascular stress, the cognitive interference of how dyspnea compromises cognitive function should be considered. The inability to attend to visual detail during added respiratory loads with associated dyspnea should be considered during assessment and treatment planning. A physical-cognitive approach to prescription of physical function may ensure more transferability to 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical TherapySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207