Running as Interoceptive Exposure for Decreasing Anxiety Sensitivity: Replication and Extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A brief, group cognitive behavioural therapy with running as the interoceptive exposure (IE; exposure to physiological sensations) component was effective in decreasing anxiety sensitivity (AS; fear of arousal sensations) levels in female undergraduates (Watt et al., Anxiety and Substance Use Disorders: The Vicious Cycle of Comorbidity, 201-219, 2008). Additionally, repeated exposure to running resulted in decreases in cognitive (i.e., catastrophic thoughts) and affective (i.e., feelings of anxiety) reactions to running over time for high AS, but not low AS, participants (Sabourin et al., "Physical exercise as interoceptive exposure within a brief cognitive-behavioral treatment for anxiety-sensitive women", Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 22:302-320, 2008). A follow-up study including the above-mentioned intervention with an expanded IE component also resulted in decreases in AS levels (Sabourin et al., under review). The goals of the present process study were (1) to replicate the original process study, with the expanded IE component, and (2) to determine whether decreases in cognitive, affective, and/or somatic (physiological sensations) reactions to running would be related to decreases in AS. Eighteen high AS and 10 low AS participants completed 20 IE running trials following the 3-day group intervention. As predicted, high AS participants, but not low AS participants, experienced decreases in cognitive, affective, and somatic reactions to running over time. Furthermore, decreases in cognitive and affective, but not in somatic, reactions to running were related to decreases in AS levels. These results suggest that the therapeutic effects of repeated exposure to running in decreasing sensitivity to anxiety-related sensations are not related to decreasing the experience of somatic sensations themselves. Rather, they are related to altering the cognitive and affective reactions to these sensations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".