3.9 Article

Stress Reactivity and Cognitive Performance in a Simulated Firefighting Emergency

期刊

AVIATION SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 84, 期 6, 页码 592-599

出版社

AEROSPACE MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.3357/ASEM.3391.2013

关键词

fire emergency; anxiety; memory; cortisol

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [1098829] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Economic and Social Research Council [1402992] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: During emergencies maladaptive behavior can reduce survival. This study compared the effects of a basic firefighter training course on 21 volunteers (with no firefighting experience) with age and gender-matched controls. Methods: Stress reactivity (salivary cortisol and anxiety) were monitored across the course: day 1 (classroom), day 2 (physical equipment training), and day 3 (simulated fire emergency). Cognitive performance (visual attention, declarative and working memory) considered important in surviving a fire emergency were measured immediately post-training or after a 20-min delay. Results: Prior to threat subjects showed an anticipatory cortisol increase but no corresponding increase in self-reported anxiety. On day 3 cortisol was higher in firefighters tested immediately after (10.37 nmol center dot L-1) and 20 min after training (7.20 nmol center dot L-1) compared to controls (3.13 center dot nmol L-1). Differences in cognitive performance were observed post-threat, with impairments in visual declarative memory in the fireflghting subjects tested immediately, and working memory impairments observed in those tested after a 20-min delay. Conclusions: Cognitive impairments were found following a simulated emergency and could explain maladaptive responses observed during real fires. Moreover, the results suggest the type of cognitive impairments observed may be time dependent, with different cognitive difficulties becoming evident at different times following an emergency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据