ArticleInternational journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology2019
Comparison of cognitive auditory event related potentials and executive functions in adolescent athletes and non-athletes - A cross sectional study.
Article in International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of a pulmonary rehabilitation program combined with cognitive training on exercise tolerance and cognitive functions among Tunisian male patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A randomized controlled trial.Chronic respiratory diseaseTrial
- Comparative effects of open-skill and closed-skill sports on executive function in university students: a 16-week quasi-experimental study.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Neurophysiological correlates of interference control and response inhibition processes in children and adolescents engaging in open- and closed-skill sports.Journal of sport and health science · 2022Article
- Auditory Information Accelerates the Visuomotor Reaction Speed of Elite Badminton Players in Multisensory Environments.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is strong evidence for the positive physical health outcomes of physical conditioning (athletic training. But there is a dearth of data on the impact of exercise on cognition, particularly in the adolescent age group. Further, most of the studies done on this topic are mainly acute in nature, and few that have seen long term effect of exercise have very rarely used objective measures such as event-related potentials. Hence, the present study was conceived to compare cognition in athletes (individual who have undergone long term physical activity) and non-athletes. We designed a cross-sectional comparative study involving apparently healthy volunteer boys in the age group of 10-19 years-non-athletes (n = 30) and athletes (n = 30). Paper pencil tests such as letter cancellation test, auditory and visual recognition reaction time, trail making test (A and B) were recorded along with auditory event-related potentials (N100, P200, N200, and P300). Data were analyzed using an unpaired t-test and Mann-Whitney U test according to the data distribution. Athletes completed letter cancellation task and trail making test faster than non-athletes. Athletes visual and auditory reaction time were lesser. Athletes had reduced latency and higher amplitude of auditory event-related potentials (N100, P200, N200, and P300) as compared to non-athletes. Hence, we conclude that athletic level physical training has a beneficial role in the executive cognitive domain among adolescents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31993102PMC6971495W3011158961What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.