Comparison of the acute effects of high‐intensity interval training and continuous aerobic walking on inhibitory control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a single bout of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and continuous aerobic exercise (CAE) on inhibitory control. The P3 component of the stimulus-locked ERP was collected in 64 young adults during a modified flanker task following 20 min of seated rest, 20 min of CAE, and 9 min of HIIT on separate days in counterbalanced order. Participants exhibited shorter overall reaction time following CAE and HIIT compared to seated rest. Response accuracy improved following HIIT in the task condition requiring greater inhibitory control compared to seated rest and CAE. P3 amplitude was larger following CAE compared to seated rest and HIIT. Decreased P3 amplitude and latency were observed following HIIT compared to seated rest. The current results replicated previous findings indicating the beneficial effect of acute CAE on behavioral and neuroelectric indices of inhibitory control. With a smaller duration and volume of exercise, a single bout of HIIT resulted in additional improvements in inhibitory control, paralleled by a smaller and more efficient P3 component. In sum, the current study demonstrated that CAE and HIIT differentially facilitate inhibitory control and its underlying neuroelectric activation, and that HIIT may be a time-efficient approach for enhancing cognitive health.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it