The Impact of Acute Exercise Timing on Memory Interference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated whether the timing of acute exercise can attenuate a memory interference effect. Across two experiments, participants completed an AB/AC memory task. Participants studied eight word pairs; four denoted AB (e.g., Hero – Apple) and four control (DE) pairs. Following this List 1, participants studied eight additional word pairs (List 2); four denoted AC, re-using words from the AB pairs (e.g., Hero – Project) and four control (FG) pairs. Following their study of both lists, participants completed a cued recall assessment. In Experiment 1 (N = 100), an acute exercise bout occurred before the AB/AC memory interference task, and the participants’ three lab visits (successive conditions) were control, moderate-intensity (50% HRR; heart rate reserve) exercise, and vigorous-intensity (80% HRR) exercise. In Experiment 2 (N = 68), the acute exercise occurred between List 1 and List 2, and the participants’ two lab visits (successive conditions) were a (80% HRR) vigorous-intensity exercise visit and a control visit. Across both experiments, we observed evidence of both proactive and retroactive interference ( p < .05), but acute exercise, regardless of intensity, did not attenuate this interference ( p > .05). Acute moderate-intensity exercise was better than control or vigorous-intensity exercise in enhancing associative memory ( p < .05), independent of interference. In Experiment 2, vigorous intensity exercise was associated with more pronounced interference ( p < .05). Our results suggest that acute exercise can enhance associative memory performance, with no attenuation of interference by exercise.
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".