Table 1.
Baseline, raw scores | Creatine, raw scores | Placebo, raw scores | Effect of hypoxiaa |
Effect of supplementationb |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t | p | t | p | ||||
Alertness rating scale | 4.1 ± 0.8 | 2.7 ± 0.9 | 2.6 ± 1.0 | −4.1 | < 0.001* | 0.1 | 0.464 |
Complex attention | 93.7 ± 16.8 | 86.4 ± 22.7 | 70.7 ± 51.5 | −2.0 | 0.031* | 1.8 | 0.049* |
ST, incongruent CE | 1.9 ± 1.8 | 2.1 ± 1.8 | 2.0 ± 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.079† | 0.9 | 0.195 |
SAT, errors | 5.4 ± 3.8 | 6.4 ± 4.4 | 8.3 ± 6.9 | 2.4 | 0.017* | −0.8 | 0.230 |
CPT, CE | 0.7 ± 1.2 | 1.1 ± 1.7 | 3.0 ± 5.6 | 2.5 | 0.013* | −2.2 | 0.020* |
CPT, omission errors | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.9 ± 1.9 | 1.8 ± 4.6 | 1.4 | 0.087† | −1.1 | 0.140 |
Executive function | 100.5 ± 17.9 | 100.9 ± 17.9 | 91.9 ± 28.9 | −1.2 | 0.118 | 1.5 | 0.082† |
SAT, correct | 55.5 ± 9.0 | 56.6 ± 8.4 | 52.9 ± 12.4 | −0.8 | 0.226 | 1.3 | 0.110 |
SAT, errors | 5.4 ± 3.8 | 6.4 ± 4.4 | 8.3 ± 6.9 | 2.4 | 0.017* | −0.8 | 0.230 |
Cognitive flexibility | 98.8 ± 18.2 | 98.9 ± 19.3 | 88.9 ± 31.7 | −1.4 | 0.092† | 1.6 | 0.072† |
SAT, correct | 55.5 ± 9.0 | 56.6 ± 8.4 | 52.9 ± 12.4 | −0.8 | 0.226 | 1.3 | 0.110 |
SAT, errors | 5.4 ± 3.8 | 6.4 ± 4.4 | 8.3 ± 6.9 | 2.4 | 0.017* | −0.8 | 0.230 |
ST, incongruent CE | 1.9 ± 1.8 | 2.1 ± 1.8 | 2.0 ± 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.079† | 0.9 | 0.195 |
Neurocognitive index | 104.2 ± 10.6 | 99.7 ± 14.3 | 92.2 ± 23.0 | −2.2 | 0.022* | 1.6 | 0.071† |
Composite memory | 106.0 ± 13.1 | 97.8 ± 21.2 | 96.1 ± 16.7 | −2.1 | 0.029* | 0.3 | 0.400 |
Psychomotor speed | 118.8 ± 18.5 | 114.5 ± 23.0 | 112.0 ± 22.9 | −2.0 | 0.033* | 0.6 | 0.279 |
Reaction time | 103.2 ± 10.6 | 100.7 ± 12.6 | 98.9 ± 13.8 | −0.7 | 0.259 | 0.4 | 0.332 |
Complex attention | 93.7 ± 16.8 | 86.4 ± 22.7 | 70.7 ± 51.5 | −2.0 | 0.031* | 1.8 | 0.049* |
Cognitive flexibility | 98.8 ± 18.2 | 98.9 ± 19.3 | 88.9 ± 31.7 | −1.4 | 0.092† | 1.6 | 0.072† |
A range of composite domain (italic type) and standard neurophysiological scores were reduced by hypoxia during PLA (effect of hypoxia). CrM standard scores tended to be higher during hypoxia than PLA (effect of supplementation), suggesting that these processes were robust to the effects of hypoxia. Note that for standard neurophysiological scores, higher error scores indicate worse performance, and higher correct response scores indicate better performance. For composite domain scores, higher scores indicate better performance. The alertness rating was measured using a six-point rating scale and was reduced with hypoxia and not corrected by CrM. ST, Stroop test; SAT, shifting attention test; CPT, continuous performance test; CE, commission errors. Descriptive data are mean ± SD.
aComparisons with baseline used one-sample t tests of normalized PLA scores compared to baseline (0) to assess the effects of hypoxia.
bBetween-treatment comparisons used paired t tests of normalized scores for CrM compared to PLA to assess the effects of supplementation.
*p < 0.05;
†p ≥ 0.05 and <0.1. Bold type highlights statistically significant comparisons.