Orienteering experts report more proficient spatial processing and memory across adulthood
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The closest surrogate to hunter-gather activity is the sport of orienteering, which naturally and simultaneously combines high-intensity interval exercise with navigation. Although human cognition can be improved across the lifespan through exercise and cognitive training, interventions like orienteering may be especially effective because they resemble activities engaged in by prehistoric humans during evolution. The present study tested whether orienteering experts have better hippocampal-dependent cognitive function than active, non-orienteering controls. One-hundred and fifty-eight healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 87 years old with varying experience in orienteering (none, intermediate, advanced, elite) reported on their spatial processing, spatial memory and episodic memory using the Navigational Strategy Questionnaire and the Survey of Autobiographical Memory. Orienteering experts reported greater use of allocentric and egocentric spatial processing and better spatial memory than controls. In contrast, episodic memory was not associated with orienteering expertise. Notably, the significant effects of orienteering on spatial cognition remained even after controlling for age, sex, and physical activity, suggesting that orienteering may be an effective intervention to prevent age-related cognitive decline in spatial navigation and memory.
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.
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 it