Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27299913›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2016

Free recall and outdoor running: cognitive and physical demand interference.

Samantha L Epling, Megan J Blakely, Paul N Russell, William S Helton

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Samantha L EplingDepartment of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand. Samantha.Epling@pg.canterbury.ac.nz.
Megan J BlakelyDepartment of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand.
Paul N RussellDepartment of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand.
William S HeltonDepartment of Psychology, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive resource theory is a proposed explanation for people's limited ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously. Reallocation of a restricted supply of cognitive resources to two or more tasks may be detrimental to performance on one or both tasks. Many professionals in high-risk fields, such as those engaged in firefighting, military, and search and rescue missions, face simultaneous mental and physical demands, yet little is known about the resources required to move over the natural terrain these operators may encounter. In the present research, we investigated whether interference was found between outdoor running and a word recall task. As hypothesized, a reduction in word recall was observed in the dual task compared to a recall-alone task; however, the distance run was not significantly different between the dual task and the run-alone task. Subjective reports of workload, task focus, and being "spent" (measures calculated from responses on a questionnaire) were greatest in the dual task. These results support the cognitive resource theory and have important theoretical and practical implications. Further research is required to better understand the type and extent of cognitive resources required by such physical tasks and the potential interference with simultaneous mental tasks.

Indexed as

ExerciseAdolescentAdultCognitionFemaleHumansMaleMental RecallMiddle AgedPsychological TheoryRunningSurveys and QuestionnairesVerbal LearningVocabularyYoung AdultAttentionCognitive resource theoryDual taskRunningWorking memory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.