Effects of 5-Week Brain Endurance Training on Fatigue and Performance in Elite Youth Epée Fencers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness of 5 weeks of brain endurance training (BET) in reducing impairments in sustained attention, performance at a specific fencing test, and perceived fatigue after a cognitive fatiguing task in youth épée elite fencers during the preseason. METHODS: Using a quasi-randomized controlled trial, 19 elite youth fencers (8 women, 18 [1] y) were divided into a BET (n = 11) or control (n = 8) group. Both groups trained for 5 sessions/wk during 5 weeks. The BET group completed the BET sessions before, during, or after fencing training, 3 or 4 times a week. The control group performed only fencing training. Before and after the 5 weeks, fencers performed a psychomotor vigilance test and fencing test before and after 40 minutes of a reverse Stroop task. Perceived fatigue was scored on a 10-cm visual analog scale. RESULTS: After 5 weeks, perceived fatigue, reaction time, and number of lapses in the psychomotor vigilance test increased from before to after the reverse Stroop task only in the control group (P ≤ .011), with no pre-to-post difference for the BET group (P > .059). No differences were found in fencing-test performance (P > .07). Effort for the reverse Stroop task increased for both groups after the 5 weeks (P = .043). We observed an increase in perceived fatigue, reaction time, and number of lapses in the BET group before the fatiguing task (P ≤ .028). CONCLUSION: BET reduced the negative effects of a cognitive fatiguing task on sustained attention, without a clear improvement in performance on the fencing test, and represents a possible tool to mitigate fatigue in fencing.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".