The Effects of Aerobic Exercise on Repetitive Behaviors and Task Performance for Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder and an Intellectual Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive behaviors (RBs) are one of the main characteristics of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and are related to a decrease in adaptive functioning. Repetitive behaviors are negatively correlated with intelligence quotient, and 31% of people with ASD have a co-diagnosis with an intellectual disability (ID). The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of aerobic exercise on RB expression after a single session and over the course of several sessions, and its ability to improve task performance for adults with ASD and ID. Five case studies were conducted, where participants exercised on a stationary bike twice a week for eight weeks. Video observations and the Jebsen Hand Function Test (JHFT) were conducted immediately pre- and postexercise. The Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R) was administered to each participant's support worker, parent, or guardian pre- and postintervention. Changes in RBs were specific to each individual. Further analysis suggested an interaction between certain RBs and that some RBs are positive expressions of emotion. The JHFT indicated that RBs may not influence performance on short-duration tasks. Due to variable results, there are future areas of inquiry for the RBS-R. Future research would benefit from identifying specific RBs that are maladaptive rather than targeting all RBs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".