Exercise Reduces Competition between Procedural and Declarative Memory Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neural systems that govern declarative and procedural memory processing do not always operate independently. Direct evidence of competition between these two memory systems in humans is supported by studies showing that performing a declarative learning task immediately after motor skill learning can disrupt procedural memory and abolish the off-line gains in skill performance obtained during consolidation. The aim of the present study was to extend recent investigations demonstrating that the exposure to a brief bout of cardiovascular exercise can protect procedural memory by enhancing postpractice consolidation. We used an experimental paradigm designed to assess whether exercise can also protect procedural memory consolidation from interference induced with declarative learning. The implicit acquisition of a serial reaction time task (SRTT) was tested after a 6-h waked-filled period. Participants who were exposed to a non-learning vowel counting (VC) task following the practice of the SRTT exhibited successful procedural memory consolidation and significant off-line gains in skill performance. Confirming that declarative memory processes can interfere with procedural memory consolidation, off-line gains in motor skill performance were suppressed when the performance of the VC task was replaced with a word list (WL) task requiring declarative learning. Performing a bout of cardiovascular exercise after the SRTT protected the newly formed procedural memory from the interference produced by the WL task. Protection was evidenced by a return of significant off-line gains in skill performance after the waked-filled period. Exercise optimizes the utilization of neural resources reducing interference between procedural and declarative memory systems.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".