| Literature DB >> 28598402 |
Laura Pomportes1,2, Jeanick Brisswalter3, Laurence Casini4, Arnaud Hays5, Karen Davranche6.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of serial mouth rinsing (MR) with nutritional supplements on cognitive performance (i.e., cognitive control and time perception) during a 40-min submaximal exercise. Twenty-four participants completed 4 counterbalanced experimental sessions, during which they performed MR with either placebo (PL), carbohydrate (CHO: 1.6 g/25 mL), guarana complex (GUAc: 0.4 g/25 mL) or caffeine (CAF: 67 mg/25 mL) before and twice during exercise. The present study provided some important new insights regarding the specific changes in cognitive performance induced by nutritional supplements. The main results were: (1) CHO, CAF and GUA MR likely led participants to improve temporal performance; (2) CAF MR likely improved cognitive control; and (3) CHO MR led to a likely decrease in subjective perception of effort at the end of the exercise compared to PL, GUA and CAF. Moreover, results have shown that performing 40-min submaximal exercise enhances information processing in terms of both speed and accuracy, improves temporal performance and does not alter cognitive control. The present study opens up new perspectives regarding the use of MR to optimize cognitive performance during physical exercise.Entities:
Keywords: cognition; conflict task; mouth rinse; nutrition; perceived exertion; time-perception task
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28598402 PMCID: PMC5490568 DOI: 10.3390/nu9060589
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Anthropometrical and physiological characteristics of participants.
| Mean (Standard Deviation) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | All | Female | Male |
| Sample size | 24 | 8 | 16 |
| Age (years) | 26 (8) | 30 (10) | 24 (6) |
| Height (cm) | 174 (10) | 164 (7) | 179 (7) |
| Body mass (kg) | 72 (14) | 57 (7) | 79 (11) |
| Body mass index (kg·m−2) | 23 (3) | 21 (2) | 25 (3) |
| Peak power output (W) | 250 (58) | 198 (31) | 276 (50) |
| Cycling intensity experimental sessions (W) | 150 (35) | 119 (18) | 166 (30) |
| Heart rate max (bpm·min−1) | 189 (8) | 185 (10) | 190 (7) |
Figure 1General procedure of each experimental session. (WU = Warm Up; Recall = Cognitive tasks recall; TEMP = Duration Production task; SIM = Simon task; MR = mouth rinsing; RH = Rehydration; ppo = peak power output; RPE = Rating of Perceived Exertion).
Cognitive performance as a function of nutritional supplementation and exercise.
| Duration Production Task Mean (Standard Errors) | Simon Task Mean (Standard Errors) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Produced Duration (ms) | Variance (ms) | Reaction Time (ms) | Errors (%) | |||||||||
| CO | IN | Total | Simon Effect § | CO | IN | Total | Simon Effect § | |||||
| Nutritional supplementation | PL | Block 1 | 1370.7 (50.9) | 197.9 (17.5) | 336.0 (8.7) | 365.5 (9.7) | 350.7 (6.8) | 29.4 (5.7) | 4.7 (0.8) | 9.8 (1.2) | 7.2 (0.8) | 5.1 (1.2) |
| Block 2 | 1313.3 (56.8) | 201.4 (24.0) | 334.3 (7.3) | 359.8 (9.0) | 347.1 (6.0) | 25.5 (5.1) | 4.3 (0.9) | 8.9 (1.3) | 6.6 (0.9) | 4.6 (1.3) | ||
| Block 3 | 1312.7 (58.6) | 185.6 (15.9) | 323.9 (7.7) | 357.6 (7.9) | 340.8 (6.0) | 33.7 (3.7) | 4.6 (0.6) | 8.7 (1.2) | 6.6 (0.7) | 4.2 (1.5) | ||
| Total | 1332.2 (31.8) | 195.0 (11.1) | 331.4 (4.6) ● | 361.1 (5.1) ● | 346.2 (3.6) | 29.5 (2.8) ● | 4.5 (0.4) | 9.1 (0.7) | 6.8 (0.5) | 4.6 (0.8) | ||
| CHO | Block 1 | 1348.9 (44.2) | 186.8 (14.5) | 334.7 (8.1) | 362.2 (8.0) | 348.4 (6) | 27.5 (6.3) | 7.0 (1.5) | 10.4 (1.7) | 8.7 (1.2) | 3.4 (2.6) | |
| Block 2 | 1259.2 (41.0) | 171.6 14.6) | 334.4 (8.4) | 361.8 (8.5) | 348.1 (6.1) | 27.5 (5.5) | 3.3 (0.8) | 9.5 (0.9) | 6.4 (0.8) | 6.3 (1.0) | ||
| Block 3 | 1249.6 (39.4) | 161.5 (11.8) | 324.2 (8.0) | 356.5 (8.1) | 354.6 (6.1) | 32.3 (5.5) | 4.4 (0.9) | 9.8 (1.1) | 7.1 (0.8) | 5.3 (1.2) | ||
| Total | 1285.9 (24.3) | 173.3 (7.9) ◘ ▲ | 331.1 (4.7) ● | 360.2 (4.7) | 345.6 (3.5) | 29.1 (3.3) ● | 4.9 (0.7) | 9.9 (0.7) | 7.4 (0.5) | 5.0 (1.0) | ||
| CAF | Block 1 | 1292.6 (24.5) | 187.0 (11.8) | 338.0 (8.5) | 364.4 (8.9) | 351.2 (6.3) | 26.4 (5.12) | 5.1 (0.9) | 10.3 (1.3) | 7.7 (0.9) | 5.2 (1.6) | |
| Block 2 | 1255.9 (39.1) | 187.3 (14.3) | 336.8 (8.0) | 360.7 (6.7) | 348.8 (5.5) | 23.9 (4.6) | 3.9 (0.9) | 10.5 (1.4) | 7.2 (0.9) | 6.6 (1.6) | ||
| Block 3 | 1249.0 (31.5) | 167.7 (11.5) | 328.4 (7.4) | 352.4 (7.4) | 340.4 (5.5) | 24 (4.7) | 4.6 (0.8) | 8.5 (1.4) | 6.5 (0.9) | 3.9 (1.7) | ||
| Total | 1265.8 (18.5) | 180.7 (7.3) ◘ | 334.4 (4.6) | 359.1 (4.4) | 346.8 (3.3) | 24.8 (2.8) | 4.5 (0.5) | 9.8 (0.8) | 7.1 (0.5) | 5.3 (0.9) | ||
| GUA | Block 1 | 1311.2 (35.4) | 193.7 (15.8) | 338.7 (7.9) | 370.4 (8.7) | 354.6 (6.3) | 31.7 (6.4) | 5.8 (1.1) | 10.5 (1.5) | 8.2 (1.0) | 4.6 (1.8) | |
| Block 2 | 1249.9 (40.4) | 176.5 (13.1) | 336.8 (7) | 365.8 (7.9) | 351.3 (5.7) | 29 (5.6) | 3.8 (0.9) | 13.3 (2.3) | 8.6 (1.4) | 9.5 (2.6) | ||
| Block 3 | 1281.1 (40.2) | 170.5 (13.2) | 326.9 (7.9) | 360.1 (7.6) | 343.5 (6.0) | 33.2 (5.4) | 3.0 (0.7) | 12.0 (1.6) | 7.5 (1.1) | 9.0 (2.8) | ||
| Total | 1280.7 (22.2) ◘ | 180.2 (8.1) ◘ | 334.1 (4.4) ■ | 365.4 (4.6) ● | 349.8 (3.4) | 30.0 (3.3) ● | 4.2 (0.6) | 11.9 (1.1) | 8.1 (0.7) | 7.7 (1.2) | ||
| Exercise | Block 1 | 1331.0 (20.0) | 191.3 (7.4) | 336.9 (4.1) | 365.5 (4.4) | 351.2 (3.2) | 28.4 (2.9) | 5.7 (0.6) | 10.2 (0.7) | 8.0 (0.5) | 8.0 (0.5) | |
| Block 2 | 1269.8 (22.3) | 184.3 (8.5) | 335.6 (3.8) | 362.0 (4.0) | 348.8 (2.9) | 26.2 (2.6) | 3.8 (0.4) | 10.5 (0.8) | 7.1 (0.5) | 7.1 (0.5) | ||
| Block 3 | 1273.0 (21.7) | 171.3 (6.6) * | 325.9 (3.8) | 356.6 (3.8) | 340.9 (2.9) | 30.5 (2.4) | 4.1 (0.4) | 9.7 (0.7) | 6.8 (0.4) ~ | 6.8 (0.4) | ||
| Total | 1292.2 (12.4) | 182.9 (4.4) | 332.9 (2.4) | 361.4 (2.3) | 347.2 (2.0) | 29.95 (1.8) | 4.5 (0.3) | 10.2 (0.4) | 7.4 (0.3) | 5.6 (0.5) | ||
§Incongruent (IN) minus congruent (CO) trials. General Linear Models (GLM): * a significant difference was found with block 1; $ a significant difference was found with block 3; ~ a trend effect was found with block 1 (p < 0.05). Magnitude based inference: ◘ a difference was found with placebo mouth rinsing, PL MR; ▲ a difference was found with guarana mouth rinsing, GUA MR; ● a difference was found with caffeine mouth rinsing, CAF MR; ■ a difference was found with carbohydrate mouth rinsing, CHO MR (75–95% likely different).
Figure 2Mean produced durations as a function of exercise (a) and supplementation (b) Errors bars represent standard errors of the mean produced duration. * p < 0.05; # 75–95% likely different.
Figure 3Mean reaction time (RT) and errors as a function of supplementation and congruency. Errors bars represent standard errors of mean RT. # 75–95% likely different.
Figure 4Simon Effect for reaction time (RT) and error as a function of supplementation. Errors bars represent standard errors of the mean Δ. # 75–95% likely different.