MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404347336 · doi:10.3758/s13421-024-01660-2

The effects of acute exercise intensity on memory: Controlling for state-dependence

2024· article· en· W4404347336 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paul D. Loprinzi, Lauren Fuglaar, R. Mangold, Myungjin Jung, Laura Day, Zakary Patrick, Kirk I. Erickson, William L. Kelemen

Bibliographic record

VenueMemory & Cognition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsRecallPsychologyEncoding (memory)CognitionCognitive psychologyExercise intensityVerbal learningMemoriaVerbal memoryAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceMedicineInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present experiment evaluated the effects of varying intensities of acute exercise on free-recall memory performance while controlling for potential state-dependent effects. Forty-eight young adults completed a within-subject experiment involving seven primary laboratory visits. The encoding and retrieval phases were matched or mismatched by taking place either during rest or during a less than 5-min bout of acute exercise, and at moderate or vigorous intensity. We did not find evidence that the effects of acute exercise on memory were state-dependent but instead demonstrated that memory recall was greater when memory retrieval occurred during vigorous-intensity exercise compared to rest. These findings have important implications for the strategic placement of exercise during the phases of memory (e.g., acquisition, storage, retrieval) to optimize memory performance and suggest boundary conditions of state-dependent learning. We discuss various theoretical accounts (e.g., shift in metabolic resources across brain regions) to explain these findings.

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)0.001
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemory & CognitionSame topicMemory Processes and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207