An examination of the synchrony effect in a short duration exercise condition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals participating in vigorous activity, in synchrony with others have been shown to exhibit a significantly higher endorphin release than performing the same activity alone. This finding, dubbed the Synchrony Effect (SE), has been repeatedly found in studies involving rowing from 30-35 minutes (Cohen et al., 2010; Sullivan & Rickers, 2013). Synchronized activities of a much shorter duration have been shown to affect the behavior of participants (Vandesolo et al, 2010). The current study was designed to see if the SE could be seen in shorter rowing duration. A sample of 54 individuals rowed in pairs on ergometers in counterbalanced 10 minute sessions of individual and group (synchronized) exercise. Pain threshold was taken immediately prior to and after the exercise, using an algometer, to indicate endorphin activity. A paired samples t-test comparing pre to post changes in pain threshold showed no difference between the conditions (t (1, 53) = 0.87, p > .05) failing to support the SE. It appears that activities longer than 10 minutes are needed to induce the SE, although shorter duration synchronized activities may still affect social outcomes. An alternative explanation may lie in the nature of the samples in the SE studies. Prior studies typically used samples of experienced rowers, who may be more capable of optimizing synchrony than the non-rowers in the current study. It may be that a finer degree of synchrony than the current sample of non-experienced rowers could maintain is required for the SE.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".