Continuous-Time Modeling of the Bidirectional Relationship Between Incidental Affect and Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that there is a bidirectional relationship between incidental affect (i.e., how people feel in day-to-day life) and physical activity behavior. However, many inconsistencies exist in the body of work due to the lag interval between affect and physical activity measurements. PURPOSE: Using a novel continuous-time analysis paradigm, we examined the temporal specificity underlying the dynamic relationship between positive and negative incidental affective states and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). METHODS: A community sample of adults (n = 126, Mage = 27.71, 51.6% Male) completed a 14-day ambulatory assessment protocol measuring momentary positive and negative incidental affect six times a day while wearing a physical activity monitor (Fitbit). Hierarchical Bayesian continuous-time structural equation modeling was used to elucidate the underlying dynamics of the relationship between incidental affective states and MVPA. RESULTS: Based on the continuous-time cross-effects, positive and negative incidental affect predicted subsequent MVPA. Furthermore, engaging in MVPA predicted subsequent positive and negative incidental affect. Incidental affective states had a greater relative influence on predicting subsequent MVPA compared to the reciprocal relationship. Analysis of the discrete-time coefficients suggests that cross-lagged effects increase as the time interval between measurements increase, peaking at about 8 h between measurement occasions before beginning to dissipate. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide support for a recursive relationship between incidental affective states and MVPA, which is particularly strong at 7-9 hr time intervals. Future research designs should consider these medium-term dynamics, for both theory development and intervention.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".