Relationships Between Muscular Strength, Cognitive Control, And Hippocampal Dependent Relational Memory Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: An increasing number of studies have shown a positive correlation between aerobic fitness and cognitive control, and hippocampal memory performance. However, the relationship between muscular strength and specific domains of cognitive function has not yet been well elucidated. The aim of this study was to examine cross-sectional relationships between muscular strength and cognitive control (i.e., attention and inhibitory control), as well as hippocampal-dependent relational memory. METHODS: Adults (N=35) between 45 and 64 years underwent strength assessments measured by leg extension one-repetition maximum (1RM), maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC), and isokinetic knee extension. Selective attention, inhibitory control, and hippocampal-dependent relational memory was assessed using the Flanker, Go/NoGo, and a Spatial Reconstruction task, respectively. Lean mass was measured via dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). RESULTS: Following adjustment for covariates (i.e., age, sex, and lean mass), greater MVC (r=-0.37, P=0.04) and isokinetic peak knee extension torques measured at 60°·s-1 (r=-0.47, P=0.008), 120°·s-1 (r=-0.37, P=0.04), and 180 °·s-1 (r=-0.39, P=0.03) were related to faster incongruent reaction time during the Flanker task. Misplacement error during spatial reconstruction task was inversely related to peak knee extension torques measured at 120°·s-1 at the trend level (r=-0.36, P=0.05). No significant associations were observed for Go/NoGo accuracy (all r’s≤-0.34, all P’s≥0.6). CONCLUSION: Individuals with greater muscular strength exhibit greater cognitive function. These findings provide insights into the potential for domain-specific interrelationships between muscular strength attentional abilities over memory performance and inhibitory control. This work was funded by The Beef Checkoff.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".