| Literature DB >> 30804825 |
Matt P Stevenson1, Richard Dewhurst2, Theresa Schilhab3, Peter Bentsen1,4.
Abstract
Exposure to nature improves cognitive performance through a process of cognitive restoration. However, few studies have explored the effect in children, and no studies have explored how eye movements "in the wild" with mobile eye tracking technology contribute to the restoration process. Our results demonstrated that just a 30-min walk in a natural environment was sufficient to produce a faster and more stable pattern of responding on the Attention Network Task, compared with an urban environment. Exposure to the natural environment did not improve executive (directed) attention performance. This pattern of results supports suggestions that children and adults experience unique cognitive benefits from nature. Further, we provide the first evidence of a link between cognitive restoration and the allocation of eye gaze. Participants wearing a mobile eye-tracker exhibited higher fixation rates while walking in the natural environment compared to the urban environment. The data go some way in uncovering the mechanisms sub-serving the restoration effect in children and elaborate how nature may counteract the effects of mental fatigue.Entities:
Keywords: Attention Restoration Theory; effort allocation; executive attention; intra-individual variance; nature walk; state regulation
Year: 2019 PMID: 30804825 PMCID: PMC6370667 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1CONSORT flow diagram. A CONSORT-inspired flowchart depicting participant numbers through phases of the study from recruitment to data analysis, including participant dropout points. The details of the eye-tracking data collection are presented in the gray box. aComputerized randomization of environment order was only possible for 23 out of 33 participants (69.7%) due to logistic restraints caused by the participants’ academic schedule. bRandomization of environment order for eye-tracking data collection was not possible for the same reason. All eye-tracking data were collected first in the natural environment, followed by the built environment (BE).
FIGURE 2Route map and photographs of the built environment exposure walk. Aerial map of Næstved, Denmark, where the route for the built environment exposure walk was selected (marked in red). A youth centre was the location of the cognitive testing area and the start/end point for the route. The route map was created using MapMyRun (http://www.mapmyrun.com).
FIGURE 3Route map and photographs of the natural environment exposure walk. Aerial map of Myrup, Denmark, where the route for the natural environment exposure walk was selected (marked in red). A rural property located in Myrup was the location of the cognitive testing area and the start/end point for the natural environment route. The route map was created using MapMyRun ().
Participant details and eye-tracking data.
| Participant characteristics | Natural environment | Built Environment | ES | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size∗ | 33 | 30 | ||
| Age | 12.03 (1.21) | 12.00 (1.23) | ||
| Gender (male/female) | 13/20 | 12/18 | ||
| Perceived restorativeness Scale | 44.80 (8.69) | 39.57 (10.84) | 0.180 | |
| Sample size† | 9 | 9 | ||
| Minutes analyzed | 5.72 (0.74) | 5.78 (0.86) | 0.855 | |
| Fixations per minute | 157.97 (11.47) | 145.01 (10.70) | 1.168 | |
| Fixation duration | 181.78 (26.22) | 184.44 (32.93) | 0.807 | |
FIGURE 4Adjusted post-walk data for performance of the Attention Network Task. Adjusted means and standard errors of the initial base model applied during linear mixed model analysis for the four outcome measures of the Attention Network Task. The post-test data displayed in the figure were adjusted using baseline data as a covariate. Subject was included in the base model as a random factor. ms: milliseconds. Significant main effects of environment are marked, ∗p < 0.05.
Means and standard errors for Attention Network Task (ANT) outcome measures (adjusted for baseline performance).
| ANT outcome measures | Natural environment | Built environment | Main effect | (Envi) ES |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Executive attention score (EXE) | 58.69 (7.46) | 68.73 (7.96) | 0.361 | |
| Accuracy (ACC) | 139.50 (0.56) | 139.12 (0.60) | 0.647 | |
| Mean reaction time (mRT) | 604.73 (9.45) | 625.12 (9.83) | -0.383 | |
| Standard error of reaction time (SERT) | 14.70 (0.50) | 16.08 (0.53) | -0.486 | |
Linear mixed models exploring the effect of environment on Attention Network Performance in typically developing children.
| Model 1 | ||
|---|---|---|
| β (95% CI) | ||
| Envi | -10.034 (-31.856, 11.788) | 0.361 |
| Baseline | 0.424 (0.126, 0.722) | |
| Intercept | 42.437 (17.839, 67.035) | |
| AIC | 632.984 | |
| AIC Model 0 | 640.447 | |
| Envi | 0.380 (-1.271, 2.032) | 0.647 |
| Baseline | 0.727 (0.569, 0.884) | |
| Intercept | 64.390 (34.608, 94.172) | |
| AIC | 322.864 | |
| AIC Model 0 | 324.525 | |
| Envi | -20.387 (-37.911, -2.863) | |
| Baseline | 0.772 (0.610, 0.934) | |
| Intercept | 183.144 (85.333, 280.955) | |
| AIC | 648.357 | |
| AIC Model 0 | 659.758 | |
| Envi | -1.387 (-2.464, -0.310) | |
| Baseline | 0.660 (0.470, 0.849) | |
| Intercept | 7.029 (4.135, 9.923) | |
| AIC | 301.381 | |
| AIC Model 0 | 308.211 | |