Acute effects of eccentric versus concentric exercise on executive function and attention of older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive function is improved acutely after aerobic and/or resistance exercise, but it is unclear if the types of muscle contraction can influence this effect. This study tested the hypothesis that undertaking an acute bout of exercise with eccentric than concentric contractions would be more beneficial for improving cognitive function post-exercise in older adults. Twenty healthy older adults (66–75 years) performed descending stair walking (DSW), ascending stair walking (ASW), and resistance exercise of the knee extensors with eccentric-only (RE-ECC) or concentric-only contractions (RE-CON) for ∼20 min each with a week between exercises in a randomized order. The Stroop tests of color naming (STCN) and conflicting color words (STCC), symbol digit modalities test, digit span test (DST), and two types of the trail making test (TMT-A, TMT-B) were assessed before and after sitting for 20 min (control session), and each exercise. A significant ( p < 0.05) improvement in the baseline test scores was found from the control session to the fourth exercise session. Time to complete the tests was significantly ( p < 0.05) reduced from pre- to post-exercise as well as after sitting for 20 min for STCN (−5.9 ± 7.4 s, Cohen’s d = 0.79), STCC (−8.9 ± 11.1 s, d = 0.80), TMT-A (−22.6 ± 9.7 s, d = 2.34) and TMT-B (−23.1 ± 13.7 s, d = 1.69) without significant difference among the four exercise conditions. A significant ( p < 0.05) improvement of DST score was found from pre- to post-exercise for DSW (9.0 ± 17.6%, d = 0.51) and RE-ECC (6.5 ± 10.6%, d = 0.61), but not for ASW and RE-CON. These results partially supported the hypothesis that eccentric exercise could affect acute changes in cognitive function greater than concentric exercise.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".