Acute Exercise and Motor Memory Consolidation: The Role of Exercise Intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A single bout of high intensity aerobic exercise (~90% VO2peak) was previously demonstrated to amplify off-line gains in skill level during the consolidation phase of procedural memory. High intensity exercise is not always a viable option for many patient groups or in a rehabilitation setting where low to moderate intensities may be more suitable. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of intensity in mediating the effects of acute cardiovascular exercise on motor skill learning. We investigated the effects of different exercise intensities on the retention (performance score) of a visuomotor accuracy tracking task. Thirty six healthy male subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups that performed either a single bout of aerobic exercise at 20 min post motor skill learning at 45% (EX45), 90% (EX90) maximal power output (Wmax) or rested (CON). Randomization was stratified to ensure that the groups were matched for relative peak oxygen consumption (ml O2/min/kg) and baseline score in the tracking task. Retention tests were carried out at 1 (R1) and 7 days (R7) post motor skill learning. At R1, changes in performance scores were greater for EX90 compared to CON (p<0.001) and EX45 (p = 0.011). The EX45 and EX90 groups demonstrated a greater change in performance score at R7 compared to the CON group (p = 0.003 and p<0.001, respectively). The change in performance score for EX90 at R7 was also greater than EX45 (p = 0.049). We suggest that exercise intensity plays an important role in modulating the effects that a single bout of cardiovascular exercise has on the consolidation phase following motor skill learning. There appears to be a dose-response relationship in favour of higher intensity exercise in order to augment off-line effects and strengthen procedural memory.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".