Maximal and Submaximal Intensity Isometric Knee Extensions Induce an Underestimation of Time Estimates with Both Younger And Older Adults: A Randomized Crossover Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our perception of time plays a critical role in nearly all daily activities and especially in sports. There are no studies that have investigated and compared time perception during exercise in young and older adults. Thus, this study aimed to compare the effects of exercise on time perception between younger and older adult populations. Thirty-three recreationally active participants were recruited and assigned to either the younger (university students, 9 males and 10 females) or older adults (>60 years, 8 males and 6 females). All participants completed four exercise conditions over two sessions on separate days: approximately 30-seconds of knee extensors 100%, 60% and 10% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), and control (no contractions). Prospective time perception was estimated (at 5-, 10-, 20-, and 30-seconds) at the beginning of each session and while performing the exercise. A main effect for condition (p < 0.001, d = 1.06) with subsequent post-hoc tests indicated participants significantly underestimated (estimated time was shorter than chronological time) time in all three exercise conditions compared to the control. There were no significant age group differences. In conclusion, exercise underestimated time estimates regardless of intensity or age. This questions the postulated intensity-dependent relationship between exercise and time perception. While older adults were expected to be less accurate in their time estimates, they may have been able to adopt alternative strategies for age-related changes in their internal clock, resulting in no significant age group differences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".