ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Walking in nature may improve affect but not cognition.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Nature-based and technology-assisted exercise for cognitive and mobility outcomes in older adults: a systematic review of randomized trials.BMC geriatrics · 2026Pooled it
- Chronic nature exposure does not moderate affective and attentional effects of acute nature exposure.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Concussion and the Autonomic, Immune, and Endocrine Systems: An Introduction to the Field and a Treatment Framework for Persisting Symptoms.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Replicating and extending research on sanctification: A cognitive appraisal with implications for behaviors, attitudes, and self-image.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Beneficial effects of natural environments on affect have been consistently reported, but effects on cognition have been less consistent. We examined affect and cognitive performance in the domains of attention, working memory, executive function, and recall and recognition memory in a sample of 188 undergraduate participants who completed a walk in one of three environments: an outdoor nature environment, an outdoor urban environment, or an indoor (treadmill) environment. Supporting the hypotheses, the outdoor nature environment resulted in the greatest increase in positive affect and decrease in negative affect from pre-to post-walk. However, there were no effects of location on any cognitive measure. These results suggest that cognitive effects do not always occur in tandem with affective benefits. Possible explanations, including prior frequent exposure to nature in our participants and extremity of the natural environment, are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.