ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Critical flicker fusion frequency assessment: robustness across photopic illumination in experienced divers.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 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
Introduction: Critical flicker fusion frequency (cFFF) is a rapid, noninvasive index of cortical arousal and visual-cognitive performance that has gained renewed interest in diving and other extreme environments. However, the extent to which ambient illumination and water submersion affect cFFF remains insufficiently characterized. Methods: Nineteen experienced divers (10 females; 24 ± 3 years) completed cFFF testing on land and at 5 m water depth under bright (land: 138 ± 2.4 lx; water: 75 ± 14.8 lx) and dark (0 lx) conditions using a manually operated flicker device. Heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) were recorded continuously. Results: For cFFF, mixed-effects ANOVAs revealed a significant main effect of submersion (p=0.0485) but not illumination (p=0.0754), with higher values in submersion compared to land (+1.4 Hz). Heart rate variability showed a main effect for submersion (p=0.004, +30 ms in submersion) and posthoc differences in dark illumination (p=0.004, +41 ms in submersion). No effects were observed for heart rate or respiration rate. Age showed a low negative correlation with cFFF (r = -0.22 to -0.40) but not with heart rate or heart rate variability. Sex effects were negligible (|r|<0.32). Discussion: Based on the current 10-minute exposure time, cFFF is robust between the applied illuminations, but small absolute effects were observed from submersion. For human performance and diving research, these findings highlight the importance of baseline measures under comparable environmental conditions to prevent obscuring genuine changes in alertness or cognitive performance. Exposure time and ambient illumination should be standardized or reported to improve comparability across studies and operational environments.
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.