The Effect of Three Months of Aerobic Training on Stroop Performance in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growing evidence supports the use of physical training interventions to improve both physical and cognitive performances in healthy older adults. Few studies have examined the impact of aerobic exercise on Stroop task performance, a measure of executive functions. In the current 3-month aerobic training study, 50 older adults (mean age = 67.96 ± 6.25 years) were randomly assigned to either a three-month physical training group or to a control group (waiting list). Training sessions were 3 times per week for 60 minutes. All participants completed pre- and post-test measures of cognitive performance using the modified Stroop task and physical performance (Rockport one-mile test). Compared to controls, the training group showed significant improvements in physical capacity (P < 0.001) and enhanced Stroop performance, but only in the inhibition/switching condition (P < 0.03). Furthermore, the increase in aerobic capacity induced by the training regimen correlated negatively with reaction time in the inhibition/switching condition of the Stroop task at posttest (r = -0.538; P = 0.007). Importantly, the reported gains in cognitive performance were observed after only three months of physical training. Taken together, the results suggest that even short-term physical interventions can enhance older adults' executive functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".