Marius Brazaitis, Henrikas Paulauskas, Albertas Skurvydas, Henning Budde, Laura Daniuseviciute, Nerijus Eimantas
Abstract
Background: It is well known that cold exposure experienced during occupational or recreational activities may adversely affect motor, cognitive performance, and health. Most research has used prolonged passive external rewarming modalities and focused on the direct effects on the kinetics of physiological and psychological responses in hypothermic subjects. However, the brief whole body rewarming effects on physiological and psychological responses in parallel with functional consequences on cognitive and neurophysiological functions have not been investigated. This study explores these effects in 12 healthy young men. Methods: Subjects (20 ± 1 years) participated in 4 randomized trials, which were designed to compare the effects of whole-body brief (5-min) rewarming in 37°C water with rewarming for the same duration in 24°C (air) thermoneutral environment in mildly hypothermic subjects. After each rewarming, indicators of neuromuscular function (reflexes, central activation ratio, electromyography of exercising muscle, and contractile properties of calf muscles) and cognitive function (attention, simple motor speed, and information processing speed) were assessed. Results: Compared to rewarming in thermoneutral environment, after brief rewarming in 37°C water, significantly lower metabolic heat production (MHP) (206 ± 33.4 vs. 121.9 ± 24.3 W·m(2), P < 0.01), heart rate (76 ± 16 vs. 60 ± 12 b·min(-1), P < 0.01), cold strain (6.4 ± 3.1 vs. 5.3 ± 2.7, P < 0.01), improved thermal comfort and induced cessation of shivering were found. Electrically induced maximum torque amplitudes increased (P100, 102.8 ± 21.3 vs. 109.2 ± 17.5 Nm and PTT100, 83.1 ± 17.1 vs. 92.7 ± 16.0 Nm, P < 0.05), contraction half-relaxation time decreased (599.0 ± 53.8 vs. 589.0 ± 56.3 ms, P < 0.05), and Mmax-wave latency shortened (17.5 ± 2.2 vs. 15.6 ± 2.0 ms, P < 0.05) after 37°C water rewarming. Unlike rewarming in thermoneutral environment, 37°C water rewarming blunted the hypothermia-induced alterations in neural drive transmission (4.3 ± 0.5 vs. 3.4 ± 0.8 mV H-reflex and 4.9 ± 0.2 vs. 4.4 ± 0.4 mV V-wave, P < 0.05), which increased central fatigue during a 2-min maximum load (P < 0.05). Furthermore, only in brief warm water rewarming cerebral alterations were restored to the control level and it was indicated by shortened reaction times (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Brief rewarming in warm water rather than the same duration rewarming in thermoneutral environment blunted the hypothermia-induced alterations for sensation, motor drive, and cognition, despite the fact that rectal and deep muscle temperature remained lowered.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,355,479
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,428
of 13,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#350,442
of 416,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#152
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 416,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
