↓ Skip to main content

Exposure to hot and cold environmental conditions does not affect the decision making ability of soccer referees following an intermittent sprint protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exposure to hot and cold environmental conditions does not affect the decision making ability of soccer referees following an intermittent sprint protocol
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2014.00185
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee Taylor, Natalie Fitch, Paul Castle, Samuel Watkins, Jeffrey Aldous, Nicholas Sculthorpe, Adrian Midgely, John Brewer, Alexis Mauger

Abstract

Soccer referees enforce the laws of the game and the decisions they make can directly affect match results. Fixtures within European competitions take place in climatic conditions that are often challenging (e.g., Moscow ~ -5°C, Madrid ~30°C). Effects of these temperatures on player performance are well-documented; however, little is known how this environmental stress may impair cognitive performance of soccer referees and if so, whether exercise exasperates this. The present study aims to investigate the effect of cold [COLD; -5°C, 40% relative humidity (RH)], hot (HOT; 30°C, 40% RH) and temperate (CONT; 18°C, 40% RH) conditions on decision making during soccer specific exercise. On separate occasions within each condition, 13 physically active males; either semi-professional referees or semi-professional soccer players completed three 90 min intermittent treadmill protocols that simulated match play, interspersed with 4 computer delivered cognitive tests to measure vigilance and dual task capacity. Core and skin temperature, heart rate, rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and thermal sensation (TS) were recorded throughout the protocol. There was no significant difference between conditions for decision making in either the dual task (interaction effects: FALSE p = 0.46; MISSED p = 0.72; TRACKING p = 0.22) or vigilance assessments (interaction effects: FALSE p = 0.31; HIT p = 0.15; MISSED p = 0.17) despite significant differences in measured physiological variables (skin temperature: HOT vs. CONT 95% CI = 2.6 to 3.9, p < 0.001; HOT vs. COLD 95% CI = 6.6 to 9.0, p < 0.001; CONT vs. COLD 95% CI = 3.4 to 5.7, p < 0.01). It is hypothesized that the lack of difference observed in decision making ability between conditions was due to the exercise protocol used, as it may not have elicited an appropriate and valid soccer specific internal load to alter cognitive functioning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 127 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 53 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 7%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 6 5%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 34 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 27 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,847,839
of 24,473,185 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,004
of 15,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,542
of 230,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#15
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,473,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 230,993 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.