Inspiratory threshold loading negatively impacts attentional performance

Figures

• 

  FIGURE 1. Inspiratory pressure-time product, effort sensation and maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) across inspiratory threshold loading conditions during masked conjunctive continuous performance trials. (A) Depicts the differences in inspiratory pressure time product across loading conditions. (B) Depicts the differences in Inspiratory effort sensation across loading conditions. (C) Depicts the differences in maximal inspiratory pressure across loading conditions. The upper and lower limits of the box represent the 95% CI, the horizontal line in the box represents the mean, and the whiskers represent the SEM. ****Significant difference from previous load condition, P < 0.001. ISignificant difference from load condition 1, P < 0.05.

• 

  FIGURE 2. Peak and mean inspiratory mouth pressure swings across inspiratory threshold loading conditions during masked conjunctive continuous performance trials. (A) Depicts the differences in peak inspiratory mouth pressure across loading conditions. (B) Depicts the differences in mean inspiratory mouth pressure across loading conditions. The upper and lower limits of the box represent the 95% CI, the horizontal line in the box represents the mean, and the whiskers represent the SEM. ****Significant difference from previous load condition, P < 0.0001, ISignificant difference from load condition 1, P < 0.05.

• 

  FIGURE 3. End-tidal gases and ventilatory responses to inspiratory threshold loading during masked conjunctive continuous performance trials. (A) Depicts the differences in PETO2 across loading conditions. (B) Depicts the differences in PETCO2 across loading conditions. (C) Depicts The differences in minute ventilation across loading conditions. (D) Depicts changes in breathing frequency across loading conditions. The upper and lower limits of the box represent the 95% CI, the horizontal line in the box represents the mean, and the whiskers represent the SEM. PETO2 and PETCO2: end-tidal partial pressures of O2 and CO2. ISignificant difference from load condition 1, P < 0.05.

• 

  FIGURE 4. Median reactions times for different stimuli across inspiratory threshold loading conditions during masked conjunctive continuous performance trials. (A) Depicts the differences in overall median reaction times across loading conditions. (B) Depicts the differences in median reaction times for color conjunctive stimuli across loading conditions. (C) Depicts the differences in Median Reaction Times for shape conjunctive stimuli across loading conditions. (D) Depicts the differences in median reaction times for non-conjunctive stimuli across loading conditions. The upper and lower limits of the box represent the 95% CI, the horizontal line in the box represents the median, and the whiskers represent the SEM. ISignificant difference from load condition 1, P < 0.05. tSignificant difference from load condition 2, P < 0.05.

• 

  FIGURE 5. Error rates across inspiratory threshold loading conditions during masked conjunctive continuous performance trials. (A) Depicts the differences in omission error rates across loading conditions. (B) Depicts the differences in commission error rates across loading conditions. The upper and lower limits of the box represent the 95% CI, the horizontal line in the box represents the mean, and the whiskers represent the SEM. There were no differences in error rates between loading conditions.

• 

  FIGURE 6. Predicted smooth in median reaction time across inspiratory effort sensation. The predicted smooth of median reaction time was obtained from generalized additive mixed effects modeling (GAMM) of measures of median reaction time where inspiratory effort sensation, inspiratory PTP, and percent change in PETO2, and PETCO2 were entered into the model as covariates. The predicted smooth curve was produced for median reaction time by setting all other covariates at their means (inspiratory PTP = –32.65 cmH2O⋅s; ΔPETO2 = 7.31%; ΔPETCO2 = –4.04%). The dashed curves show the 95% CIs around the prediction.

• 

  FIGURE 7. Predicted smooth in total error rates across inspiratory effort sensation. The predicted smooth of total error rates was obtained from generalized additive mixed effects modeling (GAMM) of measures of total error rates where inspiratory effort sensation, inspiratory PTP, and percent change in PETO2, and PETCO2 were entered into the model as covariates. The predicted smooth curve was produced for total error rates by setting all other covariates at their means (inspiratory PTP = –32.65 cmH2O⋅s; ΔPETO2 = 7.31%; ΔPETCO2 = –4.04%). The dashed curves show the 95% CIs around the prediction.

• 

  FIGURE 8. Predicted smooth in total error rates for percent change PETO2 from baseline. The predicted smooth of total error rates was obtained from generalized additive mixed effects modeling (GAMM) of measures of total error rates where inspiratory effort sensation, inspiratory PTP, and percent change in PETO2, and PETCO2 were entered into the model as covariates. The predicted smooth curve was produced for total error rates by setting all other covariates at their means (inspiratory effort sensation = 3.89; inspiratory PTP = –32.65 cmH2O⋅s; ΔPETCO2 = –4.04%). The dashed curves show the 95% CIs around the prediction.