MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286771080 · doi:10.1155/2022/6771999

Aerobic Exercise and Human Visual Cortex Neuroplasticity: A Narrative Review

2022· review· en· W4286771080 on OpenAlexafffund
Dania Abuleil, Benjamin Thompson, Kristine Dalton

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Plasticity · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeuroplasticityVisual cortexNeurosciencePsychologyAerobic exerciseRehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is compelling evidence from animal models that physical exercise can enhance visual cortex neuroplasticity. In this narrative review, we explored whether exercise has the same effect in humans. We found that while some studies report evidence consistent with exercise-induced enhancement of human visual cortex neuroplasticity, others report no effect or even reduced neuroplasticity following exercise. Differences in study methodology may partially explain these varying results. Because the prospect of exercise increasing human visual cortex neuroplasticity has important implications for vision rehabilitation, additional research is required to resolve this discrepancy in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural PlasticitySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207