McMorris Terry, Barwood Martin, Hale Beverley J, Dicks Matt, Corbett Jo
Department of Sport and Exercise Science, Faculty of Science, University of Portsmouth, Guildhall Walk, Portsmouth PO1 2ER, United Kingdom; Department Sport and Exercise Science, Institute for Sport, University of Chichester, College Lane, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 6PE, United Kingdom; Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Northumberland Road, Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 8ST, United Kingdom.
Department of Sport, Health and Nutrition, Leeds Trinity University, Brownberrie Lane, Horsforth, LS18 5HD, United Kingdom.
Physiol Behav. 2018 May 1;188:103-107. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.01.029. Epub 2018 Feb 3.
Recent research has examined the effect that undertaking a cognitively fatiguing task for ≤90 min has on subsequent physical performance. Cognitive fatigue is claimed to affect subsequent physical performance by inducing energy depletion in the brain, depletion of brain catecholamine neurotransmitters or changes in motivation. Observation of the psychophysiology and neurochemistry literature questions the ability of 90 min' cognitive activity to deplete energy or catecholamine resources. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the evidence for cognitive fatigue having an effect on subsequent physical performance. A systematic, meta-analytic review was undertaken. We found a small but significant pooled effect size based on comparison between physical performance post-cognitive fatigue compared to post-control (g = -0.27, SE = -0.12, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.04, Z(10) = -2.283, p < 0.05). However, the results were not heterogenous (Q(10) = 2.789, p > 0.10, Τ < 0.001), suggesting that the pooled effect size does not amount to a real effect and differences are due to random error. No publication bias was evident (Kendall's τ = -0.07, p > 0.05). Thus, the results are somewhat contradictory. The pooled effect size shows a small but significant negative effect of cognitive fatigue, however tests of heterogeneity show that the results are due to random error. Future research should use neuroscientific tests to ensure that cognitive fatigue has been achieved.
近期研究探讨了进行时长≤90分钟的认知疲劳任务对后续身体机能的影响。认知疲劳被认为会通过引发大脑能量消耗、脑内儿茶酚胺神经递质耗竭或动机变化来影响后续身体机能。对心理生理学和神经化学文献的观察对90分钟认知活动耗尽能量或儿茶酚胺资源的能力提出了质疑。因此，本研究的目的是检验认知疲劳对后续身体机能产生影响的证据。我们进行了一项系统的荟萃分析综述。基于认知疲劳后身体机能与对照后身体机能的比较，我们发现了一个虽小但显著的合并效应量（g = -0.27，标准误 = -0.12，95%置信区间 -0.49至-0.04，Z(10) = -2.283，p < 0.05）。然而，结果并无异质性（Q(10) = 2.789，p > 0.10，I² < 0.001），这表明合并效应量并不代表真实效应，差异是由随机误差导致的。未发现明显的发表偏倚（肯德尔相关系数τ = -0.07，p > 0.05）。因此，结果有些矛盾。合并效应量显示认知疲劳有一个虽小但显著的负面影响，然而异质性检验表明结果是由随机误差导致的。未来研究应使用神经科学测试来确保实现了认知疲劳。
