ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2026
Toward Measuring Cognitive Endurance Capacity: A Proof-of-Principle Study in a Healthy Population.
Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOccupational health professionals increasingly encounter workers who complain about a decrease in cognitive endurance, yet standardized tools to objectively assess this decrease are lacking. Cognitive endurance, the ability to sustain cognitive performance during prolonged mental effort, is critical for sustainable employability.
methodsIn this proof-of-principle study, 101 healthy working adults (M_age = 35.7, SD = 13.6) completed neuropsychological assessments and fatigue questionnaires at the start and end of a regular workday. Cognitive endurance was operationalized as within-day change scores across six cognitive domains. Analyses included paired t-tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Spearman correlations, and multiple regression.
resultsOver the course of a workday, cognitive performance improved in language, attention/executive functioning, and information processing speed (all p < 0.001), despite a significant increase in subjective fatigue (Z = -6.34, p < 0.001). Nearly half of the neuropsychological tests showed improvement. Fatigue measures explained only a small part of the variance in language change (R
conclusionCognitive performance remained stable or improved over the course of the day, even as subjective fatigue levels increased. Fatigue measures showed limited predictive value for changes in cognitive outcomes, with only subjective fatigue significantly related to performance in one domain. These findings suggest that in healthy working adults, subjective complaints alone do not reliably indicate reduced cognitive functioning. Incorporating objective cognitive data may therefore be important when assessing endurance capacity and informing occupational health evaluations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41528643What 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.