MULTI-MODAL TRAINING TO IMPROVE COGNITION, MOBILITY, AND BRAIN FUNCTIONING IN OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research argues for cross-over effects of training, such that exercise training leads to improved cognitive abilities and more efficient neural functioning (Bherer, Erickson, & Liu-Ambrose. 2013; Li, Yao, Cheng, et al., 2016). In parallel, computerized cognitive training has led to improved balance and mobility (Li, Roudaia, Lussier, et al., 2010). What underlies these cross-over effects may be the common cognitive functions and brain regions or networks that are jointly associated with cognitive and motor control. However, fewer studies have examined the potential synergistic effects of multi-modal training in the form of mixed cognitive and physical training schedules, virtual reality, computer gaming, or dual-task training (Basak, Boot, Voss, & Kramer, 2008; Mirelman, Maidan, Herman et al., 2011). This symposium presents recent work on this emerging topic, spanning a variety of approaches, such as gaming (Basak), virtual reality (Hasudorff), and combined exercise and cognitive training (Bherer, K. Li, C. Li). We will highlight a variety of outcomes measures including cognitive, motoric, and neural indices. We will discuss the influence of training format, task coherence, and trainee enjoyment and motivation on the magnitude of training-related gains. We will also discuss the specificity of training-related effects.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".