Metacognitive function in young adults is impacted by physical activity, diet, and sleep patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our cognitive capacities like working memory and attention are known to systematically vary over time with our physical activity levels, dietary choices, and sleep patterns. However, whether our metacognitive capacities--such as our strategic use and optimization of cognitive resources--show a similar relationship with these key lifestyle factors remains unknown. Here we addressed this question in healthy young adults by examining if physical activity, diet, and sleep patterns were predictive of self-reported metacognitive status. Participants completed a set of validated surveys assessing these lifestyle factors over the past week to month, as well as three measures of metacognition. Using multiple regression and exploratory factor analyses we identified four clusters of metacognitive processes that are sensitive to lifestyle behaviours. Specifically, knowledge of and offline regulation of cognition is linked with physical activity, on-line cognitive regulation is related to diet, and metacognitive worry is associated with sleep behaviours. These findings suggest that lifestyle behaviours do not just affect objective cognitive functioning, but also the meta-level processes we use to monitor our cognitive performance and exert strategic control over our cognitive resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".