ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2025
The Effect of Executive Cognitive Distraction on Sustaining a Volitional Preemptive Abdominal Contraction During a Unipedal Functional Movement in Healthy Participants.
Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The use of an abdominal contraction is a therapeutic maneuver to help stabilize the spine. It is unknown if executive cognitive distraction (ECD or "Stroop effect") influences a participant's ability to perform an abdominal contraction in a unipedal functional situation. The purpose was to determine the effect executive cognitive distraction has on abdominal bracing maneuver (ABM) execution in healthy participants while performing a unipedal functional task. Design: Repeated measure cohort design. Methods: Thirty healthy individuals, ranging 20-41 years were recruited from a local university to participate. Participants used an ABM to volitionally stabilize the spine or No-ABM, with and without ECD, while performing the Y-Balance Test (YBT). Surface electromyography (EMG) on participants' moving and stance side lower extremity (LE) internal obliques (IO) and external obliques (EO) while performing YBT in the anterior (ANT), posteromedial (PM), and posterolateral (PL) directions. Surface EMG was reported as a percentage of the participants' maximum voluntary muscle amplitude. Stroop incorporated an established ECD auditory program whereby masculine and feminine terms were discerned and participants responded by motion of their fingers. A 2 (ABM) X 2 (ECD) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) tested for significant interactions and main effects during each YBT direction. Results: The participants' age mean was x= 27.2 yrs, with ± 5.1 years SD, 18 females and 12 males. A main effect for ABM strategy in all YBT directions, where both IO and EO muscle amplitudes were significantly greater during the Yes-ABM condition (p<0.001). Also, a main effect for Stroop in the PM YBT direction, where the mean reach distance was significantly greater during the No-ECD condition (p=0.006). Conclusion: Healthy participants were able to perform a ABM during an LE reaching task, even when cognitively distracted. However, distraction did affect PM reach distances. The findings indicate participants should be able to use an ABM while performing unipedal activities that incorporate dynamic balance. Future research is required to determine the effect cognitive distraction has during an athletic or activity of daily living. Level of Evidence: 3.
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.