Chapter title |
Relationships Between Gum Chewing and Stroop Test: A Pilot Study
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 30 |
Book title |
Oxygen Transport to Tissue XXXIX
|
Published in |
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, July 2017
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-3-319-55231-6_30 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-3-31-955229-3, 978-3-31-955231-6
|
Authors |
Y. Kawakami, T. Takeda, M. Konno, Y. Suzuki, Y. Kawano, T. Ozawa, Y. Kondo, K. Sakatani |
Abstract |
Cognitive function tends to decrease with aging, therefore maintenance of this function in an aging society is an important issue. The role of chewing in nutrition is important. Although several studies indicate that gum chewing is thought to improve cognitive function, it remains debatable whether gum-chewing does in fact improve cognitive function. The Stroop test is a psychological tool used to measure cognition. A shorter reaction time indicates a mean higher behavioral performance and higher levels of oxy-Hb concentration. fNIRS is a powerful, non-invasive imaging technique offering many advantages, including compact size, no need for specially equipped facilities, and the potential for real-time measurement. The left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) seems to be mainly involved in the Stroop task.The aim of the present study was to investigate the hypothesis that gum-chewing changes cerebral blood flow in the left DLPFC during the Stroop test, and also changes the reaction time. Fourteen healthy volunteers (mean age 26.9 years) participated in this study after providing written informed consent. A piece of tasteless gum weighing 1.0 g was used. Each session was designed in a block manner, i.e. 4 rests (30 s) and 3 blocks of task (30 s). A computerized Stroop test was used (including both congruent and incongruent Stroop tasks) which calculates a response time automatically. The Binominal test was used for comparisons (p < 0.05). The results show activation of the left DLPFC during the Stroop task and that gum chewing significantly increases responses/oxy-Hb concentration and significantly shortens the reaction time. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
Researcher | 2 | 7% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Other | 4 | 13% |
Unknown | 14 | 47% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Neuroscience | 4 | 13% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
Other | 2 | 7% |
Unknown | 16 | 53% |