Effects of different doses and types of classroom-based physical activity breaks on cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging research supports the efficacy of classroom-based physical activity (PA) breaks on various aspects of cognition. Previous studies have manipulated the dose of PA (i.e., 5, 10, and 20min, Howie et al., 2015) and type of PA, ranging from more traditional forms of PA to cognitively engaging PA (Schmidt et al., 2016). Cognitively engaging PA requires a degree of mental effort and has been shown to be superior to traditional forms of PA for improving cognition. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different doses and types of classroom-based PA on cognition in a single study. Participants (N = 116, Mage = 12±0.98) completed two batteries of cognitive tests (Stroop task, Trail Making Test, Forward Working Memory, and 1-minute Math test) separated by either a teacher-led PA break or regular classroom work (control participants). The PA break consisted of 5, 10, or 20 minutes of traditional classroom-based PA (e.g., jumping jacks, squats) or cognitively engaging PA (i.e., solved math problems alongside PA). Results showed that the PA conditions improved on all aspects of cognition when compared to controls (ps > .05). Importantly, improvements were mediated by higher self-efficacy and changes in positive affect and intrinsic motivation following the PA breaks. However, there were no differences in cognitive improvements between the PA conditions with regards to type or dose of PA. Findings have implications for classroom-based PA breaks and suggest that even 5 minutes of PA can increase aspects of cognition associated with learning and academic achievement.Acknowledgments: This study was supported by a CIHR Postdoctoral Fellowship
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".