MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311891796

Influence of music on maximal self-paced running performance and passive post-exercise recovery rate.

2014· article· en· W2311891796 on OpenAlexaff
Sang Yeoup Lee, Derek S. Kimmerly

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMusic Therapy and Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rateSupine positionBlood lactateRating of perceived exertionTreadmillPerceived exertionMedicinePhysical therapyCardiologyBlood pressureInternal medicinePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of fast tempo music (FM) on self--paced running performance (heart rate, running speed, ratings of perceived exertion), and slow tempo music (SM) on post--exercise heart rate and blood lactate recovery rates. METHODS: Twelve participants (5 Women) completed three randomly assigned conditions: static noise (control), FM and SM. Each condition consisted of self--paced treadmill running, and supine post--exercise recovery periods (20 min each). Average running speed, heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured during the treadmill running period, while HR and blood lactate were measured during the recovery period. RESULTS: Listening to FM during exercise resulted in a faster self--selected running speed (10.8 ± 1.7 vs. 9.9 ± 1.4 km•hour--1, p<0.001) and higher peak HR (184 ± 12 vs. 177 ± 17 beats•min--1, p< 0.01) without a corresponding difference in peak RPE (FM, 16.8 ± 1.8 vs. SM 15.7 ± 1.9, p= 0.10). Listening to SM during the post--exercise period reduced HR throughout (main effect p<0.001) and blood lactate at the end of recovery (2.8 ± 0.4 vs. 4.7 ± 0.8 mmol•L--1, p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Listening to FM during exercise can increase self--paced intensity without altering perceived exertion levels while listening to SM after exercise can accelerate the recovery rate back to resting levels.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMusic Therapy and HealthFrench-language works237,207