MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392352199 · doi:10.1177/17470218241238881

Lack of effects of acute exercise intensity on mnemonic discrimination

2024· article· en· W4392352199 on OpenAlexaff
Paul D. Loprinzi, Jeremy B. Caplan

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMnemonicPsychologySimilarity (geometry)Cognitive psychologyHippocampusCognitionPerceptionExercise intensityEpisodic memoryHippocampal formationNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineComputer scienceBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hippocampus is thought to support episodic memory by pattern separation, thereby supporting the ability to discriminate high similarity items. Past research evaluating whether acute exercise can improve mnemonic discrimination of high similarity items is mixed. The present experiment attempts to extend these prior mixed findings by evaluating the effects of multiple exercise intensities on hippocampal-dependent, mnemonic discrimination and memory performance. Fifty-seven young adults completed a three-condition (control, moderate-intensity, and vigorous-intensity), within-subjects crossover pretest-posttest comparison. We observed no effects of acute exercise on recognition memory or mnemonic discrimination. We discuss the implications of these null findings with the broader literature by discussing the complexity of this potential exercise-mnemonic discrimination relationship, including the unique role of exercise intensity, differences in the level of processing (e.g., conceptual vs. perceptual), and unique brain regions involved in mnemonic discrimination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of Experimental PsychologySame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207