Eccentric cycling involves greater mental demand and cortical activation of the frontoparietal network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Eccentric, compared to concentric exercise, is proposed to involve different neuro‐motor processing strategies and a higher level of mental demand. This study compared eccentric and concentric cycling at matched perceived effort and torque for the mental demand and related‐cortical activation patterns. Nineteen men (30 ± 6 years) performed four different 5‐min cycling conditions at 30 RPM on a semi‐recumbent isokinetic cycle ergometer: (1) concentric at a moderate perceived effort (23 on the CR100® scale) without torque feedback; (2) concentric and (3) eccentric at the same average torque produced in the first condition; and (4) eccentric at the same moderate perceived effort than the first concentric condition. The conditions two to four were randomized. After each condition, mental demand was monitored using the NASA Task Load Index scale. Changes in oxy‐(O 2 Hb) and deoxy‐(HHb) hemoglobin during exercise were measured over both prefrontal cortices and the right parietal lobe from a 15‐probe layout using a continuous‐wave NIRS system. Mental demand was significantly higher during eccentric compared to concentric cycling (+52%, p = 0.012) and when the exercise intensity was fixed by the torque rather than the perceived effort (+70%, p < 0.001). For both torque‐ or perceived effort‐matched exercises, O 2 Hb increased significantly ( p < 0.001) in the left and right prefrontal cortices, and right parietal lobe, and HHb decreased in the left, and right, prefrontal cortices during eccentric compared to concentric cycling. This study supports that acute eccentric cycling, compared to concentric cycling, involves a higher mental demand, and frontoparietal network activation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".