The effects of response inhibition training on the self-control of physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engaging in cognitive tasks that involve executive functions impairs performance on subsequent physically-demanding tasks. Response inhibition is a core executive function involved in over-riding habitual or pre-potent responses on cognitive tests (i.e., Stroop test) that may also be operative during strenuous physical exercise when people override their urge to quit as they near exhaustion. Research showing performance on an incremental exercise test is limited by central (i.e., brain-based) factors suggests that response inhibition may play a role in exercise performance. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of response-inhibition training on whole-body exercise performance. Recreationally active university students (N=22; Mage=18.77) completed a baseline incremental exercise test to failure on a cycle ergometer. Participants were then randomized to two conditions, each performing either 9 sessions of response-inhibition training or sham training (control) over a period of 3 weeks. Following training participants engaged in a follow-up exercise test, which was compared to baseline. Over the course of the training period, manipulation checks completed after training showed that tasks in the response-inhibition group were perceived as being more difficult (p Acknowledgments: Denver Brown, Jason Langvee & Jennifer Zering
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 | 0.001 | 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".