Synergistic benefits of combined physical exercise and cognitive training on memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an established link between exercise, neurogenesis, and cognition. Most of this research has focused on non-human animal models, with little known about the effects of exercise on cognition in younger adults. Both physical exercise and cognitive training independently induce hippocampal neurogenesis in animals, suggesting that these different forms of training may work through synergistic neurological pathways to benefit memory in younger adults. The present study examined the effects of physical exercise and cognitive training on hippocampal-mediated memory processes in younger adults, with particular interest in whether combining training yields synergistic benefits for memory. Forty-eight sedentary young adults were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1) exercise training group, 2) cognitive training group, 3) combined exercise and cognitive training group, or 4) control group. Memory performance was assessed before and after the intervention on a task associated with hippocampal neurogenesis, the Pattern Separation task. Preliminary results reveal that exercise and cognitive training were both associated with improved memory performance compared to the control group. Critically, combining exercise and cognitive training led to the greatest change in performance, suggesting additive benefits of combined training on hippocampal function. The results demonstrate that different lifestyle activities can interact to improve memory.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".