Effects of High-Altitude Mountaineering on Mountaineers

Effects of High-Altitude Mountaineering on Mountaineers: History

View Latest Version

Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Subjects: Public, Environmental & Occupational Health

Contributor:

Lun Li

Yun Zhou

Shisi Zou

Yongtai Wang

Nowadays, with the convenience of international traveling and driven by many individuals’ fond dreams of challenging high-altitude exercises, high-altitude mountaineering is becoming increasingly popular worldwide. Therefore, researchers performed a meta-analysis to determine the effects of high-altitude mountaineering on cognitive functions in mountaineers before and after climbing.

high-altitude
mountaineering
mountaineer
cognitive function

1. Introduction

High-altitude mountaineering can bring about a sense of performance achievement and heightened willpower to challenge one’s environment [1]. Currently, with the convenience of international travel, high-altitude exercises, such as hiking, mountaineering, and skiing, are no longer just fond dreams for many individuals. High-altitude climbing [2] refers to the act of climbing elevations with altitudes exceeding 3500 m.

Studies have shown that hypobaric and anoxic environments in high-altitude areas affect people’s cognitive functions, such as short-term memory, attention span, attention conversion ability, and thinking and judgment ability [3,4,5,6,7], which could be potentially hazardous to individual health, both physically and mentally [8,9]. Such conditions can lead to irrational decisions, leading to falls, frostbite, accidents, fatigue, and death.

However, only a few studies have explored the physiological and cognitive changes that occur during high-altitude exploration [10,11]. In addition, most high-altitude mountaineering studies on cognitive functioning are of small sample size, and the effects of high-altitude mountaineering on cognitive function have not been well documented in a systematical format. In this meta-analysis, the effects of altitude exposure on the cognitive function of mountaineers were systematically reviewed, and applied neuropsychological tests were classified according to their superior cognitive domains. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to critically assess the effects of high-altitude mountaineering exercise on cognitive function in terms of executive function, motor speed, memory function, and verbal function in mountaineers.

2. TMB

Three studies in which 56 participants were reported to have the test on TMB were analyzed, and three sets of statistics were generated from the comparison tests of the same groups. As shown in Table 1, there was no significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test on the participants’ TMB (95% CI, −0.05 to 0.83), and the mean ES was 0.39, p > 0.05.

Table 1. Effective size (ES) and forest plot of TMB.

Effect Size					Forest Plot
Studies	Weight	Random, 95% CI			Random, 95% CI
Studies	Weight	ES	Low	High
Charles	38.31%	0.64	0.04	1.25
Carole	17.67%	−0.17	−1.15	0.81
Gregory	44.02%	0.39	−0.16	0.94
Total	100%	0.39	−0.05	0.83	Test for overall effect: Z = 1.72 (p > 0.05)
Heterogeneity: Q = 1.98, df = 2, C = 17.55, T² = −0.001

3. DSF

Six studies with 123 participants tested on DSF were analyzed, and six sets of statistics were generated from the comparison tests of the same groups. As shown in Table 2, there was a significant difference regarding DSF (95% CI, 0.24–0.90) between the pre-test and the post-test, and the mean ES was 0.57, p < 0.01.

Table 2. ES and forest plot of DSF.

Effect Size					Forest Plot
Studies	Weight	Random, 95% CI			Random, 95% CI
Studies	Weight	ES	Low	High
Charles	22.2%	−0.19	−0.79	0.40
Wu	35.21%	1.47	1.06	1.88
Philip	6.52%	−0.15	−1.39	1.09
Carole	9.87%	−0.27	−1.25	0.72
Gregory	23.47%	0.88	0.31	1.45
Carine	2.74%	−2.85	−4.81	−0.88
Total	100%	0.57	0.24	0.90	Test for overall effect: Z = 3.36 (p < 0.01)
Heterogeneity: Q = 42.10, df = 5, C = 40.30, T² = 0.92

4. DSB

Three sets of statistics were generated from the comparison tests of the same groups, with three articles involving 35 participants tested on DSB. As suggested in Table 3, there was no significant difference in DSB (95% CI, −0.83 to 0.30) between the pre-test and the post-test, and the mean ES was −0.26, p > 0.05.

Table 3. ES and forest plot of DSB.

Effect Size					Forest Plot
Studies	Weight	Random, 95% CI			Random, 95% CI
Studies	Weight	ES	Low	High
Philip	14.92%	−1.54	−2.95	−0.13
Gregory	72.28%	0.19	−0.36	0.73
Carine	12.8%	−1.33	−2.86	0.21
Total	100%	−0.26	−0.83	0.30	Test for overall effect: Z = −0.91 (p > 0.05)
Heterogeneity: Q = 7.29, df = 2, C = 7.34, T² = −0.72

5. FTL

According to four sets of statistics from three studies with two inter-group and two inner-group comparison test designs, 58 participants had FTL and revealed no significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test in this respect (95% CI, −0.27 to 0.59), and the mean ES was 0.16, p > 0.05 (Table 4).

Table 4. ES and forest plot of FTL.

Effect Size					Forest Plot
Studies	Weight	Random, 95% CI			Random, 95% CI
Studies	Weight	ES	Low	High
Gregor	18.9%	0.07	−0.86	0.99
Hornbein (Operation)	13.24%	−0.04	−1.17	1.09
Hornbein (Mountaineers)	51.18%	0.45	−0.03	0.92
Carole	16.69%	−0.46	−1.46	0.53
Total	100%	0.16	−0.27	0.59	Test for overall effect: Z = 0.72 (p > 0.05)
Heterogeneity: Q = 3.07, df = 3, C = 18.39, T² = 0.004

6. FTR

Table 5 shows the findings of four sets of statistics from three studies on FTR. Altogether, 58 participants took the test with two inter-group and two inner-group comparison test designs. The results suggested a significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test in this respect (95% CI, 0.06–0.94), and the mean ES was 0.50, p < 0.05.

Table 5. ES and forest plot of FTR.

Effect Size					Forest Plot
Studies	Weight	Random, 95% CI			Random, 95% CI
Studies	Weight	ES	Low	High	Random, 95% CI
Gregor	19.4%	−0.26	−1.19	0.67
Hornbein (Operation)	12.35%	0.98	−0.22	2.18
Hornbein (Mountaineers)	50.63%	0.89	0.4	1.39
Carole	17.62%	−0.13	−1.11	0.85
Total	100%	0.50	0.06	0.94	Test for overall effect: Z = −2.22 (p < 0.05)
Heterogeneity: Q = 7.38, df = 3, C = 17.73, T² = −0.25

7. WMSV

The findings from the WMSV participated in by 49 test-takers, as reported in two studies, indicated a significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test (95% CI, 0.14–1.12), with the mean ES being 0.63, p < 0.05 (Table 6). In this category, two studies with a within-subject design and one study with a between-subject design contributed to the three sets of statistics from which the results were generated.

Table 6. ES and forest plot of the WMSV.

Effect Size					Forest Plot
Studies	Weight	Random, 95% CI			Random, 95% CI
Studies	Weight	ES	Low	High	Random, 95% CI
Hornbein (Operation)	14.51%	1.18	−0.04	2.41
Hornbein (Mountaineers)	64.69%	0.51	0.03	0.98
Carole	20.8%	0.62	−0.38	1.63
Total	100%	0.63	0.14	1.12	Test for overall effect: Z = 2.52 (p < 0.05)
Heterogeneity: Q = 0.9, df = 2, C = 11.28, T² = −0.1

8. AST-Ver

For AST-Ver, three sets of statistics from two studies with a within-subject design and one with a between-subject design reported 49 participants’ behaviors, and there was no significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test (95% CI, −0.38 to 0.13). The mean ES was −0.35, p > 0.05 (Table 7).

Table 7. ES and forest plot of AST-Ver.

Effect Size					Forest Plot
Studies	Weight	Random, 95% CI			Random, 95% CI
Studies	Weight	ES	Low	High	Random, 95% CI
Hornbein (Operation)	16.1%	−0.38	−1.52	0.76
Hornbein (Mountaineers)	62.88%	−0.53	−1.01	−0.05
Carole	21.01%	0.21	−0.77	1.19
Total	100%	−0.35	–0.83	0.13	Test for overall effect: Z = −1.43 (p > 0.05)
Heterogeneity: Q = 1.84, df = 2, C = 12.07, T² = −0.01

9. AST-Vis

Two studies reported 63 participants in the Aphasia Test (Visual Motor Errors), from which, three sets of statistics with two within-subject designs and one between-subject design generated the finding, as shown in Table 8. There was no significant difference between the pre-test and the post-test (95% CI, −0.43 to 0.42), and the mean ES was 0, p > 0.05.

Table 8. ES and forest plot of AST-Vis.

Effect Size					Forest Plot
Studies	Weight	Random, 95% CI			Random, 95% CI
Studies	Weight	ES	Low	High	Random, 95% CI
Charles	37.22%	0.27	−0.33	0.86
Hornbein (Operation)	11.94%	−0.87	−2.05	0.32
Hornbein (Mountaineers)	50.84%	0	−0.47	0.47
Total	100%	0	−0.43	0.42	Test for overall effect: Z = −0.02 (p > 0.05)
Heterogeneity: Q = 2.83, df = 2, C = 18.28, T² = 0.05

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ijerph20065101

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.