O.4.2-7 Feedback from the inside: physical activity effects on interoceptive and emotional awareness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Interoceptive awareness refers to how one perceives its internal bodily sensations, and it has been associated with the ability to recognize, describe and regulate emotions. Physical activity (PA) has been demonstrated to have tremendous benefits for emotional well-being, but few studies have investigated how PA could moderate interoceptive awareness abilities. In this contribution, we first analysed the association between PA and interoceptive awareness. Then, we tested whether PA could functions as a moderator factor for emotional-bodily awareness relationship. Method 344 young adults were divided in three experimental groups according to their PA level (sedentary= 60; active= 114; highly active=170), assessed through the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA), and the Toronto Alexythimia Scale (TAS-20) were also administered, to analyse participants’ interoceptive and emotional awareness. Data were analysed through generalized linear model (GLM) (to test PA association with interoceptive awareness), and moderation analysis (to test if PA could moderate bodily-emotional awareness relationship). Results GLM outputs showed that MAIA’s interoceptive awareness dimensions were successfully predicted by PA level, specifically Noticing, Not-distracting, Attention-regulation, Emotional awareness, and Self-regulation. Moreover, moderation analysis results showed that PA acted as moderating factor between interoceptive and emotional awareness (). Conclusions Despite its preliminary nature, our contribution represents one of the first attempts to operationalize the relationship between Interoceptive and emotional awareness through the inclusion of PA, suggesting the use of practices based on emotional and body awareness to promote psychological and physical well-being as well as successes in sport.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".