Physical activity levels determine exercise-induced changes in brain excitability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging evidence suggests that regular physical activity can impact cortical function and facilitate plasticity. In the present study, we examined how physical activity levels influence corticospinal excitability and intracortical circuitry in motor cortex following a single session of moderate intensity aerobic exercise. We aimed to determine whether exercise-induced short-term plasticity differed between high versus low physically active individuals. Participants included twenty-eight young, healthy adults divided into two equal groups based on physical activity level determined by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire: low-to-moderate (LOW) and high (HIGH) physical activity. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to assess motor cortex excitability via motor evoked potential (MEP) recruitment curves for the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle at rest (MEPREST) and during tonic contraction (MEPACTIVE), short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and facilitation (SICF), and intracortical facilitation (ICF). All dependent measures were obtained in the resting FDI muscle, with the exception of AMT and MEPACTIVE recruitment curves that were obtained during tonic FDI contraction. Dependent measures were acquired before and following moderate intensity aerobic exercise (20 mins, ~60% of the age-predicted maximal heart rate) performed on a recumbent cycle ergometer. Results indicate that MEPREST recruitment curve amplitudes and area under the recruitment curve (AURC) were increased following exercise in the HIGH group only (p = 0.002 and p = 0.044, respectively). SICI and ICF were reduced following exercise irrespective of physical activity level (p = 0.007 and p = 0.04, respectively). MEPACTIVE recruitment curves and SICF were unaltered by exercise. These findings indicate that the propensity for exercise-induced plasticity is different in high versus low physically active individuals. Additionally, these data highlight that a single session of aerobic exercise can transiently reduce inhibition in the motor cortex regardless of physical activity level, potentially priming the system for plasticity induction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".