Financiado en parte por Science in Sport PLC
Comparable improvements in selective, but not sustained, attention in response to a multi-ingredient nootropic formulation when compared with caffeine
Hearris MA, Langan-Evans C, Foo WL, Garrigan C, Starke L, Rendeiro C, Williams C, Jackson P, Morton JP
European journal of nutrition · 0 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiado por la industriaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Ensayo controlado aleatorizado (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiado por la industria
- Empresa
- Science in Sport PLC
Según 1 financiador declarado y la declaración de financiación del texto completo.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2026-03-01 · Eur J Nutr · vol. 65 · número 2
- Editorial
- Springer Science+Business Media
- Citado
- 0 citas · más que el 19% de estudios similares · 0.0× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 61 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista híbrida) · CC-BY
- Áreas de investigación
- Coffee research and impacts · Medicinal Plants and Neuroprotection · Neurological Disorders and Treatments
- Palabras clave
- caffeine, selective attention, sustained attention, executive function, cognitive performance, blood pressure, subjective mood, reaction time, Stroop task, flanker task, plant extracts, ergogenic aids
- MeSH
- humans, caffeine, nootropic agents, cross-over studies, double-blind method, cognition, attention, reaction time, blood pressure, adult, female, male, young adult, cognitive enhancement
9 autores
- Mark A. Hearris🇬🇧 · autor de correspondenciaManchester Metropolitan University
- Carl Langan‐Evans🇬🇧Liverpool John Moores University
- Wee Lun Foo🇬🇧Liverpool John Moores University
- Calum Garrigan🇬🇧Liverpool John Moores University
- Lynn Starke🇬🇧Liverpool John Moores University
- Catarina Rendeiro🇬🇧University of Birmingham
- Claire Michelle Williams🇬🇧University of Reading
- Philippa A. Jackson🇬🇧Northumbria University
- James Peter Morton🇬🇧Liverpool John Moores University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
PURPOSE: The ergogenic effects of caffeine on cognitive performance are largely restricted to improved alertness and enhanced attention and do not typically extend to other cognitive domains. In contrast, plant extracts and phytochemicals exert broader cognitive performance benefits and, when combined together, may provide synergistic effects. METHODS: In a repeated-measures, double-blinded, randomised crossover design, 26 healthy adults completed a cognitive assessment battery 60, 180 and 300 min after ingesting a microcrystalline fibre placebo (PLA), 150 mg caffeine (CAFF) or a multi-ingredient nootropic formulation (NOOT). RESULTS: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly higher with CAFF compared to NOOT and PLA (P < 0.001). Negative PANAS scores were also significantly higher with CAFF compared to PLA (P = 0.039) and NOOT (P = 0.033). Arrow flanker correct response reaction times were significantly quicker with CAFF (P = 0.009) and NOOT (P = 0.012) compared with PLA. Similarly, Stroop correct response reaction times were significantly quicker with CAFF (P = 0.017) and NOOT (P = 0.039) compared to PLA. RVIP response accuracy was significantly higher with CAFF compared to NOOT and PLA (P < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: Data demonstrate that the multi-ingredient nootropic displayed comparable improvements in selective attention and executive function to caffeine without the negative impact upon blood pressure and subjective mood. However, improvements in sustained attention observed in response to caffeine were not present. Collectively, these data suggest multi-ingredient nootropic formulations have efficacy in improving distinct components of cognitive function, likely dependent on the specific formulation and dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4AB5V (01.08.2025) retrospectively registered.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY).
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.