Investigating the effects of a single bout of aerobic exercise on long-term memory in younger adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals who are more physically active tend to have better academic performance. Although the underlying mechanism is unclear, physical activity may improve academic performance by acutely activating the stress system: an acute stress response increases plasma cortisol levels, which increases memory consolidation for newly learned information. Thus, information learned immediately post exercise would be preferentially remembered. To test this, 55 participants viewed a video lecture before exercise, after exercise, or after rest. The exercise consisted of high intensity interval training on a cycle ergometer and their memory for the lecture material was assessed by a multiple-choice quiz conducted 14 minutes and 48 hours after the lecture for immediate and delayed recall, respectively. Better memory performance was expected for the participants who viewed the lecture after exercise compared to those who exercised after the lecture or did not exercise. Preliminary analysis found a significant correlation between baseline aerobic fitness, as determined by a maximal aerobic exercise test (VO2max) and grade point average [r(48) = 0.28, p < 0.05], suggesting that individuals with higher aerobic fitness also have better academic performance. The exercise and control groups did not differ in immediate recall of the studied material; however, recall scores improved for the exercise groups and declined for the control group following the 48-hour delay [t(45) = -1.80, p = 0.08]. The preliminary findings suggest that a single bout of aerobic exercise can acutely improve long-term memory performance in younger adults.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".