A 24-Week Multi-Modality Exercise Program Improves Executive Control in Older Adults with a Self-Reported Cognitive Complaint: Evidence from the Antisaccade Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise programs involving aerobic and resistance training (i.e., multiple-modality) have shown promise in improving cognition and executive control in older adults at risk, or experiencing, cognitive decline. It is, however, unclear whether cognitive training within a multiple-modality program elicits an additive benefit to executive/cognitive processes. This is an important question to resolve in order to identify optimal training programs that delay, or ameliorate, executive deficits in persons at risk for further cognitive decline. In the present study, individuals with a self-reported cognitive complaint (SCC) participated in a 24-week multiple-modality (i.e., the M2 group) exercise intervention program. In addition, a separate group of individuals with a SCC completed the same aerobic and resistance training as the M2 group but also completed a cognitive-based stepping task (i.e., multiple-modality, mind-motor intervention: M4 group). Notably, pre- and post-intervention executive control was examined via the antisaccade task (i.e., eye movement mirror-symmetrical to a target). Antisaccades are an ideal tool for the study of individuals with subtle executive deficits because of its hands- and language-free nature and because the task's neural mechanisms are linked to neuropathology in cognitive decline (i.e., prefrontal cortex). Results showed that M2 and M4 group antisaccade reaction times reliably decreased from pre- to post-intervention and the magnitude of the decrease was consistent across groups. Thus, multi-modality exercise training improved executive performance in persons with a SCC independent of mind-motor training. Accordingly, we propose that multiple-modality training provides a sufficient intervention to improve executive control in persons with a SCC.
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".