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 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".