The effect of non-vigorous synchronized activities on pain tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has investigated the outcomes associated with groups of people participating in synchronized activities. For example, participating in vigorous synchronized activities may result in increased pain tolerance, which has been interpreted as elevated levels of endorphins (Cohen et al., 2009; Sullivan et al., 2011). Non-vigorous synchronous activities have also been found to promote an individuals willingness to cooperate with others (Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009), which is known to be an effect of endorphins (Machin & Dubar, 2011). The present study has combined the protocols used by Cohen et al., (2009) and Wiltermuth & Heath (2009). Specifically, the study examined if non-vigorous synchronized activities would produce the same 'synchrony effect' on pain tolerance found with vigorous synchronized activities. A sample of 18 undergraduate students (8 male, 10 female) walked on a treadmill for 15 min (M=2.0 km/hr) under two conditions: solitary, and synchronized in pairs. The conditions were counterbalanced, and pace was matched in both sessions. As per Cohen et al. (2009), post-activity pain tolerance was measured using a blood pressure cuff on participants' non-dominant arms. Results indicated that post-activity pain tolerance did not differ significantly between individual (M = 176.11, SD = 68.27) and paired (M = 188.89, SD = 73.80) conditions (t (17) = -1.52, p > .05). The present results did not replicate those of previous research which found a significant increase in pain tolerance after the group conditions. The inconsistent results may be due to the influence of the size of the groups, as both Cohen et al., (2009) and Wiltermuth & Heath (2009) used larger groups than in the present study.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".