MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410368929 · doi:10.1101/2025.05.08.652761

Eccentric cycling improves motor learning more than concentric cycling

2025· preprint· en· W4410368929 on OpenAlexafffund
Layale Youssef, Benjamin Pageaux, Jason L. Neva

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsCyclingEccentricConcentricPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMaterials scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringMathematicsMedicineGeometryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An acute bout of aerobic exercise (AAE) performed before practicing a motor task can enhance skill acquisition and motor learning. To date, research on the effects of AAE on motor learning has focused exclusively on concentric cycling, leaving the impact of eccentric cycling unexplored. Unlike concentric cycling, eccentric cycling involves muscle lengthening while resisting the reverse movement of the pedals and is characterized by greater force production with lower cardiovascular and metabolic cost. Regarding neuroplasticity changes, eccentric contractions induced a prolonged decrease in intracortical inhibition compared to concentric contractions. Eccentric cycling AAE also increases activation in cognitive-related regions. Given the involvement of these regions and motor cortex excitability in motor learning, we hypothesized that eccentric cycling AAE would enhance motor learning to a greater extent than concentric AAE. A total of 60 young healthy individuals were allocated to one of three groups that performed 20 min of: i) eccentric cycling; ii) concentric cycling; or iii) seated rest. Both cycling AAE conditions were performed at a power equivalent to 70% peak heart rate (i.e., moderate intensity). A continuous tracking task was used to assess motor skill acquisition (immediately after the intervention) and motor learning (48 h retention test). For both acquisition and retention, the eccentric group outperformed both the concentric and rest groups, while the concentric group also showed a better performance compared to the rest group at retention. Thus, we demonstrated that eccentric cycling AAE enhances motor learning to a greater extent than concentric cycling AAE, while also confirming previous work that showed enhanced motor learning following concentric cycling AAE compared to rest. Our findings suggest that eccentric cycling AAE may have important implications for exercise protocols prescribed in sports-related and clinical contexts. Highlights Eccentric cycling enhanced motor learning to a greater extent than concentric cycling Eccentric and concentric cycling enhanced motor learning more than rest Enhanced skill acquisition occurred after eccentric cycling, along with lower heart rate response and perceived effort. Eccentric cycling may have important implications in sports-related and clinical contexts

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207