EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL EXERCISE, COGNITIVE TRAINING, AND COMBINED INTERVENTION ON EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
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
Several studies have reported benefits of exercise interventions (see Bherer, Erickson & Liu-Ambrose, 2013 for review) and cognitive training (see Belleville & Bherer, 2012 for a review) on cognitive performance in older adults, but the effect of combining both interventions has rarely been studied. This talk will present findings from dual-task cognitive training, physical exercise intervention and combined fitness and cognitive trainings on neurocognitive and physical outcomes in older adults. Overall, results show improved performance in neuropsychological test of executive control (switching) after cognitive training, but no substantial added benefits of physical exercise training. In the computerized dual-task, results showed larger change in dual-mixed than in single-mixed trials, but only for the groups that completed the dual-task training. Results of our studies support the benefits of dual-task training on executive functions and dual task performance, and suggest equivalent effect of aerobic and stretching exercise on executive control and dual-task performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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