Older adults with a self-reported cognitive complaint show improved executive control following a 24-week multi-modality exercise training program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise programs involving aerobic and resistance training (i.e., multiple-modality) improve 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 represents an important question because the identification of optimal training programs may serve to delay, or ameliorate, further cognitive decline. Here we had individuals with a self-reported cognitive complaint (SCC) participate 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 (N=31) but also completed a cognitive-based stepping task (i.e., multiple-modality, mind-motor intervention: M4 group [N=32]). To address executive control we employed a pre- and post-intervention assessment of antisaccades (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 neural mechanisms regulating the task are linked to neuropathology in cognitive decline. Results showed that M2 and M4 group antisaccade reaction times reliably decreased 20 and 26 ms, respectively, from pre- to post-intervention and the magnitude of the decrease was consistent across groups. Thus, a cognitive training component did not engender an additive benefit to post-intervention executive control. As such, we propose that multiple-modality training provides a sufficient intervention to improve executive control in persons with a SCCAcknowledgments: Supported by NSERC and CIHR.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".