Maintained and Delayed Benefits of Executive Function Training and Low-Intensity Aerobic Exercise Over a 3.5-Year Period in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a follow-up study of our previous work, with a specific goal to examine whether older adults are able to maintain or show delayed cognitive and psychosocial benefits of executive function training and physical exercise over a period of 3.5 years on average. Thirty-four participants from the original training study (17 from the executive function training and 17 from the aerobic exercise group) returned and completed a single follow-up session on a set of cognitive and psychosocial outcome measures. The results of the returned follow-up sample showed some significant original training transfer effects in WCST-64 performance but failed to maintain these benefits at the follow-up session. Surprisingly, episodic memory performance showed some significant improvement at the follow-up relative to baseline, signaling delayed benefits. The findings add some novel implications for cognitive training schedule and highlight the possible importance of continuous engagement in long-term cognitive enhancement in healthy older adults.
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".