Effects of Different Acute Plyometric Training Intensities on Attention and Psychological States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this investigation was to explore in a sample of female students the effects of several acute plyometric training intensities (low, moderate, and high—55–65%, 70–80%, and 90–100% of maximal vertical jump performance, respectively) on cognition (attention) and psychological states (mood). Thirty-seven female students (mean age = 19.72 ± 0.73 years, mean body mass index = 19.51) participated in the current study. They were randomly allocated to one of three conditions: a high-intensity plyometric exercise (HIPE), a moderate-intensity plyometric exercise (MIPE), and a low-intensity plyometric exercise (LIPE). Before and immediately after each session for the three conditions, all participants underwent a cognitive performance test (d2 test) and filled in a battery of psychological questionnaires (the Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE), and the Brunel Mood Scale (BRUMS)). The data reported higher concentration performance and a lower number of errors in the MIPE when compared with HIPE (all, p-value < 0.05) groups, whereas no significant difference was found between other conditions (p-value > 0.05). The RPE value was higher in the HIPE (p-value < 0.001) and MIPE (p = 0.01) than in the LIPE, and in the HIPE than in the MIPE (p = 0.001) conditions. Concerning the BRUMS scale, fatigue (p = 0.005) was significantly different among the various conditions, being higher in HIPE with respect to MIPE and LIPE (all, p-value < 0.05) conditions. In conclusion, moderate-intensity plyometric exercise can be considered the best activity to improve visual attention. Practitioners may practice moderate-intensity plyometric exercises to improve concentration performance. However, due to the limitations of the present study (lack of a control group and between-subjects study design), further research in the field is warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".