An acute bout of high‐intensity exercise affects nocturnal sleep and sleep‐dependent memory consolidation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute exercise has been shown to affect long-term memory and sleep. However, it is unclear whether exercise-induced changes in sleep architecture are associated with enhanced memory. Recently, it has been shown that exercise followed by a nap improved declarative memory. Whether these effects transfer to night sleep and other memory domains has not yet been studied. Here, we investigate the influence of exercise on nocturnal sleep architecture and associations with sleep-dependent procedural and declarative memory consolidation. Nineteen subjects (23.68 ± 3.97 years) were tested in a balanced cross-over design. In two evening sessions, participants either exercised (high-intensity interval training) or rested immediately after encoding two memory tasks: (1) a finger tapping task and (2) a paired-associate learning task. Subsequent nocturnal sleep was recorded by polysomnography. Retrieval was conducted the following morning. High-intensity interval training lead to an increased declarative memory retention (p = 0.047, d = 0.40) along with a decrease in REM sleep (p = 0.012, d = 0.75). Neither procedural memory nor NREM sleep were significantly affected. Exercise-induced changes in N2 showed a positive correlation with procedural memory retention which did not withstand multiple comparison correction. Exploratory analyses on sleep spindles and slow wave activity did not reveal significant effects. The present findings suggest an exercise-induced enhancement of declarative memory which aligns with changes in nocturnal sleep architecture. This gives additional support for the idea of a potential link between exercise-induced sleep modifications and memory formation which requires further investigation in larger scaled studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".