Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
• Statement of the Problem and Justification Cognitive performance under physiologically stressful conditions is critical in high-demand environments such as military operations, diving, and firefighting. One such stressor is restricted breathing, which can occur due to equipment (e.g., masks, regulators) or environmental pressures (e.g., underwater). Restricted breathing has been shown to increase physiological strain, which may in turn impact attention, reaction time, and task execution. Despite this, there is limited research examining how different breathing strategies can mitigate the cognitive effects of restricted respiration.
Understanding whether specific breathing techniques can preserve cognitive function under stress has practical implications for operational readiness, safety, and task performance in extreme or demanding environments.
• Synopsis of Relevant Research Previous human studies have shown that controlled breathing techniques, such as tactical or box breathing (inhale-hold-exhale-hold patterns), can reduce anxiety and improve focus in stressful situations. For example, tactical breathing has been adopted in military and law enforcement settings to enhance performance under pressure. Other research in sports psychology and respiratory therapy suggests that altering breathing frequency or depth can modulate autonomic nervous system activity, potentially affecting cognitive control and reaction time.
Additionally, psychomotor vigilance tasks (PVTs) have been widely used to assess the impact of physiological stressors - such as sleep deprivation, hypoxia, and fatigue - on sustained attention and reaction time. However, few studies have directly examined the interaction between structured breathing patterns and PVT performance during restrictive breathing loads.
• Importance and Next Step This study represents a logical next step in understanding how breathing techniques can buffer against cognitive decline under conditions that simulate real-world respiratory restriction (e.g., underwater diving). By directly comparing the effects of two distinct breathing strategies during a controlled, restrictive breathing task, this research will help determine whether certain techniques are more effective in preserving attention and reaction time. The findings could inform training and operational protocols for individuals working in challenging environments, as well as guide future studies into breathing-cognition interactions under physical stress.
Full description
Study Overview This within-subject, randomized crossover study investigates how two different breathing techniques impact sustained attention during restrictive breathing conditions that simulate underwater environments. The techniques tested are a tactical combat breathing method (slow, paced breaths with intentional holds) and a multiple-breath technique involving rapid successive breaths. Each participant will perform a 10-minute psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) under each breathing pattern while in a chest wall loading device that simulates resistive breathing in underwater conditions. The order of breathing techniques will be randomized. There will be 2 visits with a rest day in between for testing two different breathing patterns.
Screening
Inclusion Criteria
Study Flow and Schedule Visit 1: Orientation and Training First Pattern (Approximately 120 Minutes)
Visit 2: Training Second Pattern 2 Days Later (Approximately 120 Minutes)
• Same as visit 1 except for a change in breathing pattern.
Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) Participants are instructed to respond as quickly as possible when a red number appears on the screen. The number represents the milliseconds elapsed since the visual cue appeared, and it stops once the participant responds. This simple, reaction-based task is widely used to assess sustained attention and is sensitive to fatigue and cognitive load.
Chest wall force antagonistic device
Interventions and Randomization
Physiological Measurements
Comparison to Standard Therapy
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
15 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal