Are There Extended Cognitive Improvements from Different Kinds of Acute Bouts of Physical Activity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Acute bouts of physical activity of at least moderate intensity have shown to enhance cognition in young as well as older adults. This effect has been observed for different kinds of activities such as aerobic or strength and coordination training. However, only few studies have directly compared these activities regarding their effectiveness. Further, most previous studies have mainly focused on inhibition and have not examined other important core executive functions (i.e., updating, switching) which are essential for our behavior in daily life (e.g., staying focused, resisting temptations, thinking before acting), as well. Therefore, this study aimed to directly compare two kinds of activities, aerobic and coordinative, and examine how they might affect executive functions (i.e., inhibition, updating, and switching) in a test-retest protocol. It is interesting for practical implications, as coordinative exercises, for example, require little space and would be preferable in settings such as an office or a classroom. Furthermore, we designed our experiment in such a way that learning effects were controlled. Then, we tested the influence of acute bouts of physical activity on the executive functioning in both young and older adults (young 16–22 years, old 65–80 years). Overall, we found no differences between aerobic and coordinative activities and, in fact, benefits from physical activities occurred only in the updating tasks in young adults. Additionally, we also showed some learning effects that might influence the results. Thus, it is important to control cognitive tests for learning effects in test-retest studies as well as to analyze effects from physical activity on a construct level of executive functions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".