MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970999835

EFFECTS OF AN ACUTE BOUT OF AEROBIC EXERCISE ON RISK TAKING

2019· article· en· W2970999835 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
CJ Thomson, MA Rastad, MB Gaetz

Bibliographic record

VenueTopSCHOLAR (Western Kentucky University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerobic exerciseMedicinePhysical exerciseExercise physiologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C.J. Thomson, M.A. Rastad, M.B. Gaetz University of the Fraser Valley, Chilliwack, BC Canada In recent years there has been a great interest in the effects of exercise on cognition, but few have looked at whether physical activity influences risk taking. Exercise increases levels of circulating cortisol and dopamine, both of which have been linked to risk-taking. Exercise has been considered an outlet for impulsive cravings (e.g., through distraction or stimulation of reward pathways), but whether acute exercise actually attenuates or increases risk taking is largely unknown. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of an acute bout of vigorous exercise on factors related to decision-making, including risk taking, reward sensitivity, punishment sensitivity, and behavioural inhibition. METHODS: Healthy (free of psychological or neurological conditions), moderately active males and females (n = 20, 50% females, mean age = 22.4 years, sd = 2.48) performed either a 30-minute bout of cycling at 60% of their maximal power output (determined at baseline) or watched a neutral film. Participants provided saliva samples to measure cortisol pre- and post-intervention for both the neutral and exercise conditions. Following the intervention, participants completed a series of computerized behavioural tasks: the balloon-analogue risk task (BART), the risky gains task, and the STOP-it task. The study employed a repeated measures, crossover design. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in cortisol (m ± SD: 13.39 ± 21.41 ug/dL,p= .013) following the exercise intervention, and a significant decrease in cortisol (-6.11 ± 7.41 ug/dL; p=.002) following the neutral intervention. There were no significant main effects for any of the behavioural tasks, all p> .05. There was a significant interaction between order and condition for the BART (both average and adjusted total balloon pumps, P< .05). The second time performing the BART (regardless of condition) resulted in fewer total pumps (or decreased risk taking). CONCLUSION: Acute exercise did not influence risk taking in the current sample. It may be beneficial to include a practice session of behavioural tasks (namely, the BART) at baseline to decrease the impact of any practice effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopSCHOLAR (Western Kentucky University)Same topicOccupational Health and Safety ResearchFrench-language works237,207