Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32719638›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

Cognition and Brain Activation in Response to Various Doses of Caffeine: A Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study.

Bin Zhang, Ying Liu, Xiaochun Wang, Yuqin Deng, Xinyan Zheng

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bin ZhangShanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Ying LiuShanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Xiaochun WangShanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Yuqin DengSchool of Sports Science, Nantong University, Nantong, China.
Xinyan ZhengShanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai University of Sport · CNNantong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Caffeine, which is widely used for enhancing athletic performance, has been suggested to have a positive impact on cognition via stimulating the brain. However, no study published to date has explored the effects of different doses of caffeine ingestion on brain activation via cortical hemodynamics. The purpose of the present crossover, double-blind study was to investigate the effects of low, moderate, and high doses of caffeine ingestion on cognitive performance and brain activation. Ten healthy male subjects ingested placebo or caffeine (3, 6, or 9 mg/kg body mass). The effects of each treatment condition were evaluated by Stroop tasks before and 60 min after the ingestion of caffeine. Reaction time (RT) and accuracy of responses to congruent and incongruent stimuli were assessed. As an index of brain activation with cognition, levels of oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) were measured via near-infrared spectroscopy. A 4 × 2 mixed ANOVA revealed that there were significant interaction effects for RT in both incongruent and congruent conditions (

Indexed as

brain activationcaffeinecognitiondifferent dosesnear-infrared spectroscopy

Identifiers

PMID32719638
PMCPMC7350703
OpenAlexW3040340527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.