ArticlePloS one2025
The effect of ergometer cycling and visual foraging on brain function: A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dual-task training comprising cognitive and physical components may enhance cognitive function, and increased prefrontal cortex activation may underpin these improvements. The aim of this pilot study was to examine the effects of cycling and visual foraging on executive function (EF). Twenty-seven participants (mean age 25.44 ± 4.31 years) completed four lab-based sessions, one in which their aerobic capacity ([Formula: see text]O2max) and baseline EF scores assessed were determined, and three randomized experimental conditions: ergometer cycling (EC), visual foraging (VF) and both combined (EC + VF). Participants' EF performance was assessed at baseline, and pre-and post- intervention using the 2-Back task (working memory), the Flanker Task (inhibitory control), and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST; task switching). Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and eye-tracking data were collected throughout each condition. Affective state was assessed via the Affect Grid. Repeated measures ANCOVAs, incorporating baseline EF task scores as covariates, revealed condition x time x covariate interactions for the Flanker task only; task performance of participants with poorer baseline scores improved more profoundly in the EC condition. Subjective arousal and prefrontal cortex (PFC) activation were higher in both cycling conditions relative to VF; hence, ergometer cycling, rather than visual foraging, might be the more impactful intervention in these regards. However, these elevations were not associated with EF enhancements; near-ceiling effects in EF task performance may explain this. The EC condition elicited greater energetic investment than the EC + VF condition; possibly because the secondary VF task distracted from the cycling exercise. PFC activation was only correlated with gaze fixations during the EC + VF condition, potentially reflecting concurrent increases in supply of, and demand for, oxygen during the combined condition.
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.