Obstacle course activity in soldiers impedes recall but not learning of a read text.

Research suggests that preceding physical activity benefits learning in the general population, however the impact of physical activity before testing has not been systematically explored. We examined how an acute, complex anaerobic activity impacted learning and retention of text. Soldiers read Special Operations or Pension texts and were tested on recall and comprehension at 1 and 48 hours after reading. Participants also performed a challenging physical course before learning, before testing, or outside of these two periods. Results were compared using a mixed Analysis of Covariance with a "fitness-effort" covariate factor. Testing complied with Human Research Ethics Committee guidelines. Participants performing physical activity before testing had lower mean first test scores than participants performing the activity outside of the learning or testing window. After 48 hours, there was no difference among groups. Equally, while participants who read the Special Operations materials performed better than those who read the Pension materials, there was no effect related to activity timing. Acute obstacle course activity impeded recall but not learning of a read text. Additional study is needed to determine whether metabolic or motoric demands of the physical activity caused the deficit.

Bias and sensitivity of proprioception of a passively felt hand path with and without a secondary task.

Previously, we observed changes in the scale, rotation, and location of drawn shapes when subjects simultaneously performed a secondary task, but not in the shape or proportion of the drawing. We suggested the secondary task impacted motor planning and execution or proprioception of the primary task. To isolate for proprioceptive effects, here we used the same secondary task during passive shape perception. A robotic manipulandum moved the subject's hand around the perimeter of a template shape and then a test shape differing in size, proportion, or location. Subjects also performed the same primary task while simultaneously performing a secondary task of reporting the orientation of right or left tilted arrows. We compared the performance between single and dual task, and different workspaces. In single-task conditions, subjects perceived scale, location, and proportion very close to the actual (all biases under 1 cm). A secondary task only increased the uncertainty range for judgment of scale, with no other effect. Subjects judged shapes in the centered workspace to be smaller and closer relative to the template compared with those in the peripheral workspace, although in that workspace, it was more difficult to discern changes in the proportion of the shape. The result for scale in the current passive paradigm is not different from our active study in which efference copy was available. This suggests that the scale parameters of the shape, whether actively or passively encountered, are disrupted by task interference at the level of proprioception or sensory integration rather than motor planning and execution.