The Attributes and Characteristics of Leisure Activity Engagement that Foster Cognition in Aging: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The association between leisure activities and cognition in aging is well supported, suggesting that intellectual, physical, and social leisure engagement protects against cognitive decline. However, less is known about the attributes and characteristics of leisure activity engagement that foster neurological protection. The purpose of this study was to review the current evidence related to the salient features of leisure activity engagement that foster cognition in aging. Using scoping review procedures, nine databases were searched. Sixty-five articles, published between 2000 and 2021 met study criteria, providing empirical information about the ways in which attributes and characteristics of leisure engagement have shown an association with cognition in aging. The purpose of a scoping review is to systematically map the literature on a topic, identifying key concepts, theories, sources of evidence, and gaps in the research. This review identified and explored the attributes of leisure engagement which were frequency, intensity, duration, and variety. Characteristics of leisure engagement identified include novelty, active/productive engagement, enjoyment, meaning, and self-direction. Literature supports, to varying degrees, the association between leisure attributes and characteristics and cognition in aging. This information may provide more meaningful direction for intervention than recommendations for engagement in specific activities or activity domains. Results suggest that it is the way leisure is experienced, i.e., the attributes and characteristics of leisure engagement, and not any specific leisure activity or category of activities that may determine the protection provided against cognitive decline in aging. This can be used to guide future research, provide beneficial recommendations to older adults, and in the design of efficacious interventions to prevent cognitive decline in aging.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".