2020
DOI: 10.1080/23279095.2020.1807984
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development and reliability of a test for assessing executive functions during exercise

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This approach provided a fair comparison of variability from different scales-derived scores between trials. Both SEM and MD were calculated as shown in Equations (2) and (3), being interpreted in combination with the percentage of pre-to-post RVP test change [ 45 ]. where SEM is the standard error of measurement where MD is the minimal difference and k is the number of trials.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach provided a fair comparison of variability from different scales-derived scores between trials. Both SEM and MD were calculated as shown in Equations (2) and (3), being interpreted in combination with the percentage of pre-to-post RVP test change [ 45 ]. where SEM is the standard error of measurement where MD is the minimal difference and k is the number of trials.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In previous studies (Faria et al, 2022;Frois et al, 2022;Hooper et al, 2022), using the same EFs task, our group showed that the RT has good reliability and is sensitive enough to identify changes in the task performance during moderate exercise. On the other hand, the accuracy demonstrated a ceiling effect.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…For practice trials, the stimulus exposure time was unlimited, and the feedback exposure time and the time between stimuli were 1000 ms. For test trials, the stimulus exposure time was 1500 ms, and the time between stimuli was 500 ms. In addition, as suggested by (Lehle & Hubner, 2008) and similar to our previous studies (Faria et al, 2022;Frois et al, 2022;Hooper et al, 2022), low incongruent stimuli percentage was adopted compared to congruent stimuli (27,27%) to prevent participants from adapting to them.…”
Section: Executive Functions Assessment During the Learning Sessionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 2 more Smart Citations