Exergaming Improves Executive Functions in Patients With Metabolic Syndrome: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that participation in exercise-related games can improve executive function, attention processing, and visuospatial skills. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether exercise via exergaming (EXG) can improve executive function in patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS). METHODS: A total of 22 MetS patients were recruited and randomly assigned to an EXG group or a treadmill exercise (TE) group. The reaction time (RT) and electrophysiological signals from the frontal (Fz), central (Cz), and parietal (Pz) cortices were collected during a Stroop task after 12 weeks of exercise. RESULTS: During the Stroop congruence (facilitation) judgment task, both the EXG and TE groups showed significantly faster RT after 12 weeks of exercise training. For N200 amplitude, the EXG group demonstrated significantly increased electrophysiological signals from the Fz and Cz cortices. These changes were significantly larger in the EXG group than in the TE group. Separately, for the P300 amplitude, the EXG groups presented significantly increased electrophysiological signals from the Fz, Cz, and Pz cortices, whereas the TE group showed significantly increased electrophysiological signals from the Cz and Pz cortices only. During the Stroop incongruence (interference) judgment task, both the EXG and TE groups showed significantly faster RT. For P300 amplitude, the EXG group had significantly increased electrophysiological signals from the Fz and Cz cortices only, whereas the TE group had significantly increased electrophysiological signals from the Fz, Cz, and Pz cortices. CONCLUSIONS: EXG improves executive function in patients with MetS as much as normal aerobic exercise does. In particular, a unique benefit of EXG beyond increased aerobic capacity is the improved selective attention among cognitive functions. Thus, EXG could be recommended to someone who needs to improve their brain responses of concentration and judgment as well as physical fitness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04015583; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04015583.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".