MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081996987 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00725

Age-related Shift in Neural Complexity Related to Task Performance and Physical Activity

2014· article· en· W2081996987 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer J. Heisz, Michelle Gould, Anthony R. McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyNeural activityNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human brain undergoes marked structural changes with age including cortical thinning and reduced connectivity because of the degradation of myelin. Although these changes can compromise cognitive function, the brain is able to functionally reorganize to compensate for some of this structural loss. However, there are interesting individual differences in outcome: When comparing individuals of similar age, those who engage in regular physical activity are less affected by the typical age-related decline in cognitive function. This study used multiscale entropy to reveal a shift in the way the brain processes information in older adults that is related to physical activity. Specifically, older adults who were more physically active engaged in more local neural information processing. Interestingly, this shift toward local information processing was also associated with improved executive function performance in older adults, suggesting that physical activity may help to improve aspects of cognitive function in older adults by biasing the neural system toward local information processing. In the face of age-related structural decline, the neural plasticity that is enhanced through physical activity may help older adults maintain cognitive health longer into their lifespan.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207