Effect of High Intensity Interval Training Compared to Continuous Training on Cognitive Performance in Young Healthy Adults: A Pilot Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To improve cognitive function, moving the body is strongly recommended; however, evidence regarding the proper training modality is still lacking. The purpose of this study was therefore to assess the effects of high intensity interval training (HIIT) compared to moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICE), representing the same total training load, on improving cognitive function in healthy adults. It was hypothesized that after 6 weeks (3 days/week) of stationary bike training, HIIT would improve executive functions more than MICE. Twenty-five participants exercised three times a week for 6 weeks after randomization to the HIIT or MICE training groups. Target intensity was 60% of peak power output (PPO) in the MICE group and 100% PPO in the HIIT group. After training, PPO significantly increased in both the HIIT and MICE groups (9% and 15%, p < 0.01). HIIT was mainly associated with a greater improvement in overall reaction time in the executive components of the computerized Stroop task (980.43 ± 135.27 ms vs. 860.04 ± 75.63 ms, p < 0.01) and the trail making test (42.35 ± 14.86 s vs. 30.35 ± 4.13 s, p < 0.01). T exercise protocol was clearly an important factor in improving executive functions in young adults.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it