A Social Neuroscience Perspective on Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this investigation was to examine the cognitive characteristics of individuals who demonstrate successful and unsuccessful self-regulation of physical activity behavior. In Study 1, participants articulated 1-week intentions for physical activity and wore a triaxial accelerometer over the subsequent 7 days. Among those who were motivated to increase their physical activity, those who were most and least successful were administered an IQ test. In Study 2, a second sample of participants completed the same protocol and a smaller subset of matched participants attended a functional imaging (fMRI) session. In Study 1, successful self-regulators (SSRs) scored significantly higher than unsuccessful self-regulators (USRs) on a test of general cognitive ability, and this difference could not be accounted for by favorability of attitudes toward physical activity or conscientiousness. In Study 2, the IQ effect was replicated, with SSRs showing a full standard deviation advantage over USRs. In the imaging protocol, USRs showed heavier recruitment of cognitive resources relative to SSRs in the anterior cingulate and orbitofrontal cortex during performance of a Stroop task; SSRs showed heavier recruitment in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".