Effects of Cognitive Control Exertion and Motor Coordination on Task Self-Efficacy and Muscular Endurance Performance in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging research shows a strong connection between brain areas governing cognition and motor behavior. Yet, research investigating the negative aftereffects of cognitive control exertion on task performance has not considered the potential role of areas governing motor behavior. The present study investigated the effects of high cognitive control exertion on task self-efficacy and exercise performance in children. A secondary purpose was to investigate whether motor coordination influences the change in exercise performance differently following low versus high cognitive control exertion. Participants (N = 70) performed two isometric handgrip endurance trials separated by a Stroop task, which was either congruent (low cognitive control) or incongruent (high cognitive control). Motor coordination was assessed prior to the first endurance trial. Task self-efficacy for performing the second endurance trial was assessed following the Stroop task. Participants in the high cognitive control condition reported lower task self-efficacy and showed a reduction in endurance exercise performance. Task self-efficacy mediated the cognitive control – performance relationship. Participants scoring lower on motor coordination showed the greatest declines in exercise performance following high cognitive control, whereas motor coordination did not affect performance following low cognitive control. The results of this study provide evidence that task self-efficacy and exercise performance are also negatively affected in children following high cognitive control, and interestingly, these effects are exacerbated among those scoring lower in motor coordination. We recommend future research investigate motor coordination as a potential mechanism for the reductions in both cognitive and physical task performance following the prolonged exertion of high cognitive control.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".