ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
Critical flicker fusion frequency: confounders and caveats.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Cognitive risk during underwater exposure: from environmental stressors to assessment and context-aware monitoring.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCritical flicker fusion frequency (cFFF) measures visual perception, with higher values indicating better performance. It is widely used to assess the effects of breathing gases in diving and hyperbaric environments.
aimIdentify confounders explaining inconsistent cFFF study results.
methodsFour experiments using a manual flicker device in volunteers with healthy eyes: 1. cFFF was measured in 174 recreational divers to examine demographic effects. 2. One male diver was tested daily over 85 days. 3. In 28 divers, cFFF was measured before and after 5 min of normobaric oxygen. 4. In 24 divers, cFFF was tested with and without diving masks, plus a condition with diagonal flicker light on the mask.
results1. Mean cFFF: 39.2 ± 5.1 Hz; decreased with age (p < 0.001), no gender/BMI effect. 2. Mean: 43.4 ± 2.1 Hz; stable across lighting. 3. Thresholds differed by frequency order; minimal O₂ effect. 4. Masks had no effect, but diagonal light reduced cFFF (p < 0.01).
conclusioncFFF varied by 13% across divers and 5% in a single diver. Age and observer-light geometry influenced results. Oxygen had minor impact. Findings support using age-specific norms and considering perceptual confounders in diving research.
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.