Effects of Cardiorespiratory Fitness on Cerebral Oxygenation in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Exercise is known to improve cognitive functioning and the cardiorespiratory hypothesis suggests that this is due to the relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) level and cerebral oxygenation. The purpose of this systematic review is to consolidate findings from functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) studies that examined the effect of CRF level on cerebral oxygenation during exercise and cognitive tasks. Methods Medline, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Studies categorizing CRF level using direct or estimated measures of V̇O2max and studies measuring cerebral oxygenation using oxyhemoglobin ([HbO2]) and deoxyhemoglobin ([HHb]) were included. Healthy young, middle-aged, and older adults were included whereas patient populations and people with neurological disorders were excluded. Results Following PRISMA guidelines, 14 studies were retained following abstract and full-text screening. Cycle ergometer or treadmill tests were used as direct measures of CRF, and one study provided an estimated value using a questionnaire. Seven studies examined the effects of CRF on cerebral oxygenation during exercise and the remaining seven evaluated it during cognitive tasks. Increased [HbO2] in the prefrontal cortex (PFC) was observed during cognitive tasks in higher compared to lower fit individuals. Only one study demonstrated increased [HHb] in the higher fit group. Exercise at submaximal intensities revealed increased [HbO2] in the PFC in higher compared to lower fit groups. Greater PFC [HHb] was also observed in long- vs. short-term trained males but not in females. Primary motor cortex (M1) activation did not differ between groups during a static handgrip test but [HHb] increased beyond maximal intensity in a lower compared to higher fit group. Conclusion Consistent with the cardiorespiratory hypothesis, higher fit young, middle-aged, and older adults demonstrated increased cerebral oxygenation compared to lower fit groups. Future research should implement randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions that improve CRF and cerebral oxygenation longitudinally.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".