References | Participant characteristics | Intervention | Control | Duration | Manipulation check | Effect on performance (summary) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brietzke et al. [79] | N: 20 cyclists (♂) Age: 35.00 ± 7.00 y Mass: 80.50 ± 10.40 kg Height: 176.00 ± 5.00 cm BMI: 26.04 ± 2.94 kg/m2 Level: PL 2/3 (PPO = 358.63 ± 21.96 W, YoE = 7.56 ± 5.89 y, TV = 310.6 ± 128.1 km/week) | RVIP test (PC) | – | 40 min | S: MF ↑ in I2 vs I1 (assessed using M-VAS) B: ↓ in RT and ACC in I2 vs I1 (assessed during RVIP) P: ↑ θ band activity in I2 vs I1 (assessed using EEG) | ↓ in TTE (small) and PPO (small) in I vs Baseline, no effects on VO2Peak or VT (measured using a MIET) (ES(d)) |
Campos et al. [29] | N: 13 judo athletes (9♂/4♀) Age: 19.50 ± 3.00 y Mass: 68.10 ± 13.30 kg Height: 169.00 ± 5.10 cm Body fat: 12.20 ± 3.80% Level: NA (YoE = 7.20 ± 3.90 y; TL = 11.20 ± 4.60 h/wk) | Incongruent Stroop task with RI (paper version) | Docu | 30 min | S: MF ↑ in I2 vs I1 and in I2 vs C2 (assessed using M-VAS) | No significant effects on number of throws (trivial) or physical performance index (small) (measured using a specific judo fitness test) |
Clark et al. [33] | (1) Competitive group: N: 10 competitive athletes (♂) Age: 27.40 ± 6.30 y Mass: 75.60 ± 9.70 kg Height: 179.00 ± 6.00 cm Level: PL3 (VO2 peak = 58.30 ± 4.10 mL/kg.min; PPO = 401.00 ± 36.00 W; Wget = 149.00 ± 32.00; TL = 9.50 ± 2.50 h/week; PA-R = 9.70 ± 0.70; TET = 9.50 ± 2.50 h/week) (2) Non-competitive group: N: 10 healthy participants (♂) Age: 25.80 ± 4.60 y Mass: 93.30 ± 17.00 kg Height: 183.00 ± 6.00 cm Level: PL1 (VO2 peak = 39.00 ± 7.30 ml/kg.min; PPO = 280.00 ± 27.00 W; Wget = 91.00 ± 25.00 W; TL = 3.20 ± 1.90 h/week; PA-R = 3.80 ± 1.90; TET = 3.20 ± 1.90 h/week) | Modified (congruent, incongruent and neutral) Stroop task and N-back task (PC) | Docu | 30 min | B: No effects on ACC or RT in both groups (assessed during the intervention tasks) P: No effects on cerebral oxygenation in both groups (assessed using fNIRS) | No evidence of MF based on manipulation checks |
Filipas et al. [68] | N: 18 rowers (11♂/6♀) Age: 11.00 ± 1.06 y Mass: 46.72 ± 11.14 kg Height: 154.79 ± 9.41 cm Level: NA (TF: > 2 sessions/week; YoE; 1.50 ± 0.85 y) | (1) Incongruent Stroop task (PC) (2) Customised arithmetic test (Paper) | Drawing a mandala | 60 min | B: no effects on RT, ↑ in ACC in I6 vs I1 (assessed during the Stroop task) | No evidence of MF based on manipulation checks |
Filipas et al. [69] | N: 10 U23 cyclists (♂) Age: 20.00 ± 1.20 y Mass: 66.10 ± 7.60 kg Height: 180.40 ± 5.60 cm Level: PL4 (calc.) (VO2Max = 69.00 ± 4.40 ml/min.kg; PPO = 380.00 ± 39.00 W; TF > 4 sessions/week; TL > 300 h/week; YoE > 3 y) | Modified (congruent and incongruent) Stroop task (PC) | Docu | 30 min | B: no effects on RT and ACC (assessed during Stroop task) P: no effects on HRV (assessed using a Polar T61) | No evidence of MF based on manipulation checks |
Filipas et al. [35] | (1) U14 group: N: 12 soccer players U14 (♂) Mass: 55.00 ± 8.00 kg Height: 168.00 ± 4.00 cm Level: NA (Exp = competing at national level; YoE > 3 y) (2) U16 group: N: 12 soccer players U16 (♂) Mass: 62.00 ± 8.00 kg Height: 170.00 ± 5.00 cm Level: NA (Exp = competing at national level; YoE > 3 y) (3) U18 group: N: 12 soccer players U18 (♂) Mass: 69.00 ± 8.00 kg Height: 177.00 ± 7.00 cm Level: NA (Exp = competing at national level; YoE > 3 y) | Incongruent Stroop task (PC) | Reading a selection of emotionally neutral online magazines | I: 30 min C: 15 min | S: MF ↑ in I vs C (assessed using M-VAS) B: No effects on ACC and RT (assessed during Stroop task) | ↓ in test distance (small to large) in I vs C in all age groups (measured using the Yo-Yo IR test) (ES(d)) |
Filipas et al. [32] | (1) Training group: N: 10 participants (3♂/7♀) Age: 27.60 ± 6.30 y Mass: 69.60 ± 18.40 kg Height: 169.40 ± 6.80 cm Level: PL1 (calc.) (VO2peak = 32.90 ± 6.90 ml/min.kg) (2) Placebo group: N: 10 participants (3♂/7♀) Age: 27.50 ± 6.00 y Mass: 68.70 ± 14.30 kg Height: 169.50 ± 9.60 cm Level: PL1 (calc.) (VO2peak = 32.80 ± 5.60 ml/min.kg) | (1) Cognitive test battery (45 min) (2) Modified Stroop task (40 min) (3) task switching (5 min) | Staring at a white screen | I: 90 min C: 15 min | S: MF ↑ in I vs C (assessed using M-VAS) | ↓ in total distance (small) in I vs C in both groups (measured using a time-based time trial) (ES(d)) |
Fortes et al. [87] | N: 25 swimmers (14♂/11♀) Age: 20.40 ± 2.06 y Mass: 72.00 ± 9.00 kg Height: 181.00 ± 7.00 cm Level: NA (TF = 5.80 ± 0.50 sessions/week; TL = 42.50 ± 6.20 km/week; YoE = ~ 8.40 y; FINApoints = 602.61 ± 25.78 (♂)/611.84 ± 26.61 (♀); Exp = international-level) | Smartphone use (Social networking apps) | Docu | 30 min | S: MF ↑ in I vs C and in I1 vs I2 (assessed using M-VAS) B: no effect on ACC, ↑ in RT in I vs C (assessed using a short Stroop task) P: no effects on HRV (assessed using a Polar H10) | ↑ in completion time (medium) in I vs C (mostly visible in the second block) (assessed using a 200 m (distance based) swimming trial) (ES(η2)) |
Franco- Alvarenga et al. [67] | N: 12 cyclists (?) Age: 34.30 ± 6.20 y Mass: 77.60 ± 6.80 kg Height: 179.30 ± 5.10 cm Level: PL3 (VO2Max = 58.90 ± 6.20 mL/kg.min; PPO = 367.00 ± 32.50 W; TF = 4.70 ± 2.30 sessions/wk; TL = 283.70 ± 138.60 km/wk; Experience = ~ 6.50 y) Caffeine consumption: non-consumers (≤ 40 mg/day) = 3; occasional consumers (≤ 250 mg/day) = 5; daily consumers (between 250 and 572 mg/day) = 4 | RVIP test (PC) | – | 40 min | S: MF ↑ in I2 vs I1 (assessed using M-VAS) P: ↑ in θ activity in I2 vs I1 (assessed using EEG) | ↑ in completion time (very large) and ↓ in APO (very large) in I vs C (assessed using a distance based time trial) (ES(d)) |
Holgado et al. [77] | N: 30 participants (24♂/6♀) Age: 23.50 ± 6.30 y Level: PL1 (calc.) (VO2max: 41.88 ± 9.08 ml/min.kg) | AX-CPT (PC) | Documentary | 90 min | S: MF ↑ in I vs C (assessed using M-VAS) B: no effects on ACC (assessed during the AX-CPT task) | No effects on a TTE (assessed using a 80% VO2 Max TTE test) |
Lam et al. [76] study 1 | N: 9 participants (♂) Age: 22.00 ± 2.60 y Mass:70.00 ± 7.50 kg Height: 173.00 ± 2.00 cm | Incongruent Stroop task | / | 30 min | S: MF ↑ in I vs Baseline (assessed using M-VAS) | ↓ in distance covered (small) in I vs Baseline (assessed using a Yo-Yo IR1 test) (ES(d)) |
Lam et al. [76] study 2 | N: 9 participants (7♂/2♀) Age: 21.10 ± 1.20 y Mass:74.00 ± 8.50 kg Height: 179.00 ± 4.00 cm | Incongruent Stroop task | – | 30 min | S: MF ↑ in I vs Baseline (assessed using M-VAS) | ↑ in completion time (small) in I vs Baseline (assessed using a distance based time trial) (ES(d)) |
Lopes et al. [36] | (1) Male group: N: 18 runners (♂) Age: 25.00 ± 1.00 y Mass: 63.20 ± 1.30 kg Height: 172.70 ± 1.50 cm Level: PL5 (calc.) (IAAF score = 846.00 ± 49.00; TF = 8 sessions/wk; TL = 12 ± 1 km/session or 96 ± 9 km/week; RE = 215.00 ± 4.00 ml/kg.km; VO2Max = 73.24 ± 1.37 ML/kg.min; maxHR = 191.00 ± 2.00; MaxSpeed = 21.90 ± 0.30 km/h; VE = 160.00 ± 4.20 l/min) (2) Female group: N: 17 runners (♀) Age: 25.00 ± 1.00 y Mass: 52.40 ± 1.00 kg Height: 163.80 ± 1.20 cm Level: PL5 (calc.) (IAAF score = 867.00 ± 36.00; TF = 7 sessions/wk; TL = 12 ± 1 km/session or 88 ± 7 km/week; RE = 229.00 ± 4.00 ml/kg.km; VO2Max = 61.29 ± 1.45 mL/kg.min; maxHR = 186.00 ± 2.00; MaxSpeed = 18.80 ± 0.30 km/h; VE = 112.00 ± 2.40 l/min) | Stroop task (PC) | Docu | 45 min | S: MF ↑ in I2 vs C2 and in I2 vs I1 in both groups (assessed using M-VAS) B: no effects on RT and ACC (assess using a shorter and distinct Stroop task) | ↓ in TTE (small) in I vs C in both groups (measured using a running TTE test) (ES(d)) |
Macmahon et al. [3] | N: 20 participants (18♂/2♀) Age: 25.40 ± 3.24 y Level: NA (TF = 2.84 ± 1.79 h/week) | AX-CPT | Docu | 90 min | B: no difference in I vs C (assessed using AX-CPT) | No evidence of MF based on manipulation checks |
Macmahon et al. [71] | N: 13 participants (10♂/3♀) Age: 19.92 ± 1.75 y Level: NA (TL = 3.55 ± 1.44 sessions/week; TF = 6.72 ± 4.03 h/week; YoE = 10.80 ± 4.48 y; Exp = registered recreational leagues or higher) | Incongruent Stroop task (PC) | Congruent Stroop task | 30 min | S: MF ↑ in I2 vs C2 and in I2 vs I1 (assessed using a 7-pt Likert scale) B: ↑ in RT in I vs C, no effect on ACC (assessed during the Stroop tasks) | ↓ in duration time (medium) in I vs C (measured using a beep test) (ES(η2p)) |
Marcora et al. [78] | N: 16 subjects (10♂/6♀) Age: 26.00 ± 3.00 y Mass: 69.00 ± 10.00 kg Height: 175.00 ± 9.00 cm Level: PL2 (calc.) (PPO = 288.00 ± 70.00 W; VO2peak = 52.00 ± 8.00 ml/kg.min) | AX-CPT | Docu | 90 min | B: ↓ in ACC (assessed during the AX-CPT) P: no effect on glucose (assessed using a Physioflow PF05L1) | ↓ in TTE (small) in I vs C, no effects on RPM (assessed using a TTE test) (ES(d)) |
Martin et al. [31] | (1) Elite group (EG) N: 8 cyclists (♂) Age: 23.40 ± 6.40 y Mass: 68.20 ± 4.30 kg Height: 180.00 ± 7.00 cm Level: PL5 (PPO: 414.00 ± 48.00 W; TL > 5 sessions/week; TV > 500 km/week; YoE > 5y) (2) Non-elite group (NEG) N: 9 participants (♂) Age: 25.60 ± 5.30 y Mass: 80.70 ± 11.30 kg Height: 177.00 ± 7.00 cm Level: PL1/2 (PPO: 261.00 ± 28.00 W; TL ~ 3 sessions/week; TV ~ 80 km/week; YoE = 2 y) | Modified incongruent Stroop task (PC) | Sitting and focussing on a centred black cross | I: 30 min C: 10 min | B: ↓ in RT with no effects on ACC (assessed during the Stroop task) | No evidence of MF based on manipulation checks |
O’Keeffe et al. [81] | N: 15 active participants (♂) Age: 24.00 ± 3.00 y | TDLoadDback | Resting | I: 16 min C: 2 min | S: MF ↑ in I1 vs I2 (assessed using VAS) | No performance effects (PPO, APO and oxygen consumption) in I vs C (assessed using a time-based time trial) |
Pageaux et al. [72] | N: 12 adults (8♂/ 4♀) Age: 21.00 ± 1.00 y Mass: 69.00 ± 11.00 kg Height: 174.00 ± 12.00 cm Level: PL2 (TF ≥ 2 aerobic activities/week) | Modified incongruent Stroop task (PC) | Congruent Stroop task (PC) | 30 min | B: ↑ in RT in I vs C, no effect on ACC (comparison of Stroop task responses) P: no effect on glucose (assessed using Biosen EFK Diagnostics) | ↑ in completion time (medium) and ↓ in running speed (medium) in I vs C, no effect on pacing (measured using a 5 km running time trial) (ES(η2p)) |
Penna et al. [84] | N: 16 swimmers (11♂/ 5♀) Age: 15.45 ± 0.51 y Level: NA (TL = 30,000 m/week; YoE = 7.35 ± 2.20 y; Exp = competing in state and national competitions) | Stroop task (paper version) | Docu | 30 min | S: MF ↑ in I2 vs I1 and in I vs C (assessed using M-VAS) P: no effect on HRV (assessed using a polar V800) | ↑ in completion time (trivial), ↓ in mean speed (trivial) and impaired pacing (trivial) in I vs C (measured using a 1500 m swimming task) (ES(d)) |
Penna et al. [83] | N: 12 handball players (?) Age: 17.50 ± 3.63 y Level: NA (TL = ~ 6 h/week; YoE = 5.00 ± 2.20 y; Exp = regional level) | Stroop task (paper version) | Docu | 30 min | S: MF ↑ in I2 vs I1 and in I2 vs C2 (assessed using M-VAS) | ↓ in total distance covered (small) in I vs C (measured using the Yo-Yo IR1) (ES(d)) |
Pires et al. [80] | N: 8 cyclists (♂) Age: 29.30 ± 7.90 y Mass: 67.60 ± 7.50 kg Height: 177.20 ± 4.60 cm Level: PL3 (calc.) (PPO = 318.90 ± 22.40 W; VO2Max = 64.10 ± 4.80 ml/kg.min; YoE = 5.00 ± 3.20 y; Exp = competing at regional level) | RVIP test (PC) | Rest | 30 min | B: ↑ in errors and ↓ in ACC, no effects on RT (assessed during RVP test) P: ↑ in θ PFC power in I1,2,3 vs C1,2,3 (blocks during RVP test) (assessed using EEG) | ↑ in time to completion (moderate) and ↓ in APO (moderate) in I vs C (measured using a cycling time trial) (ES(d)) |
Salam et al. [73] | N: 11 cyclists (♂) Age: 38.00 ± 6.00 y Mass: 76.50 ± 9.60 kg Level: PL3 (calc.) (VO2peak = 60.50 ± 4.10 ml/kg.min; TL > 5 h of training/week; YoE ≥ 3y) | Modified Stroop task (PC) | Reading magazines | 30 min | S: MF ↑ in I2 vs C2 (assessed using a 10 pt Likert scale) | ↓ in TTE (small to moderate) and estimated W’ (moderate) in I vs C, no effects on CP (measured using a TTE test) (ES(d)) |
Schücker et al. [74]- study 1 | N: 12 sport/endurance athletes (3♂, 9♀) Age: 29.41 ± 14.47 y Level: NA (TF = 5.87 ± 3.52 sessions/week; TL = 8.25 ± 4.31 h/week; YoE = 10.00 ± 7.35y) | Unmatched Stroop task (PC) | Matched Stroop task (PC) | 10 min | S: MF ↑ in I vs C (assessed using a Likert scale) B: ↑ in RT and ↓ in ACC in I vs C (assessed during the Stroop task) P: no effect on glucose (assessed using Accu-Chek performa meter) | No effects on running time in I vs C (measured using a beep test) |
Schücker et al. [74]- study 2 | N: 14 sport/endurance athletes (5♂, 9♀) Age: 30.64 ± 13.11 y Level: NA (TF = 5.04 ± 2.77 sessions/week; TL = 7.89 ± 4.16 h/week; YoE = 14.54 ± 8.65y) | Unmatched Stroop task (PC) | Matched Stroop task (PC) | 10 min | S: MF ↑ in I vs C (assessed using a Likert scale) B: ↑ in RT and ↓ in ACC in I vs C (assessed during the Stroop task) | No effects on running time in I vs C (measured using a beep test) |
Slimani et al. [85] | N: 10 active endurance athletes (♂) Age: 16.00 ± 1.05 y Mass: 55.50 ± 4.20 kg Height: 1.62 ± 0.04 cm Level: PL1 (calculated based on performance parameters) (VO2 Max = 39.20 ± 4.80 ml/min/kg; Exp = “engaged in track events”) | Stroop task (paper version) | Reading magazines | 30 min | B: ↓ in concentration performance and ↑ in errors in I2 vs C2 (assessed using the d2 test) | ↓ in estimated (moderate) and speed related (moderate) VO2Max values in I vs C (measured using a beep test) (ES(d)) |
Smith et al. [86] | N: 12 soccer players (♂) Age: 24.00 ± 0.40 y Mass: 76.10 ± 2.00 kg Height: 175.30 ± 1.30 cm Level: NA (Exp = recreational) | Modified Stroop task (paper version) | Reading emotionally neutral magazines | 30 min | S: MF ↑ in I2 vs C2 (assessed using M-VAS) | ↓ in total distance (small) (measured using the Yo-Yo IR1) (ES(d)) |
Veness et al. [75] | N: 10 cricket players (♂) Age: 21.00 ± 8.00 y Mass: 77.10 ± 9.90 kg Height: 1.85 ± 0.08 m Level: NA (Exp = “elite”; YoE ≥ 2 y) | Modified Stroop task (PC) | Reading emotionally neutral magazines | 30 × 60 s Stroop | S: MF ↑ in I vs C (assessed using M-VAS) | ↓ in total distance (small) (measured using the Yo-Yo IR1) (ES(d)) |
Weerakoddy et al. [70] | N: 25 Australian football players (♂) Age: 23.80 ± 4.60 y Level: NA (Exp = community level) | Incongruent Stroop task (app) | Documentary | I: 35 min C: 30 min | B: ↓ in test score in I1 vs I30 (assessed during Stroop) | ↓ in total distance (small) (measured using the Yo-Yo IR1) (ES(d)) |
Zering et al. [82] | N: 15 university students (8♀/7♂) Age: 19.56 ± 1.69 Level: PL 1 (Frequency of PA = 6.00 ± 2.00 sessions (> 10 min)/week) | Stop signal task (PC) | Documentary | 10.5 min | S: MF ↑ in I2 vs C2 (assessed using ME Borg scale) | ↓ in PPO (medium) and VO2Peak (moderate) in I vs C (measured using a graded exhaustion test) (ES(η2p + d)) |