| Title |
Effects of heat stress and dehydration on cognitive function in elite female field hockey players
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13102-018-0101-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hannah MacLeod, Simon Cooper, Stephan Bandelow, Rachel Malcolm, Caroline Sunderland |
| Abstract |
It has previously been suggested that heat exposure and hypohydration have negative effects on cognitive performance, which may impact upon sporting performance. The aim of the present study was to examine the independent effects of heat stress and hypohydration on cognitive performance in elite female field hockey players. Eight unacclimatised elite field hockey players (age: 22 ± 3 y; height: 1.68 ± 0.05 m; body mass: 63.1 ± 6.0 kg) completed a cognitive test battery before and after 50 min of field hockey specific exercise on a treadmill in four experimental trials; two in hot conditions (33.3 ± 0.1 °C), and two in moderate (16.0 ± 3.0 °C), both with and without ad libitum water intake. On the visual search test, participants were faster overall in the heat (1941 vs. 2104 ms, p = 0.001). Response times were quicker in the heat on the Sternberg paradigm (463 vs. 473 ms, p = 0.024) and accuracy was improved (by 1.9%, p = 0.004). There was no effect of hydration status on any of the markers of cognitive function. Overall, the findings suggest that in elite field hockey players exposure to heat enhances response times and/or accuracy on a battery of cognitive function tests. However, hypohydration does not appear to affect cognitive performance in elite field hockey players. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 105 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 36 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 37 | 35% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Unknown | 37 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,058,070
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#215
of 505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,450
of 328,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.