Influence of Habitual Physical Activity on Cognitive Function of Healthy Young Adults After Passive Heat Exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Regular physical activity is positively associated with enhanced cognitive performance, whereas excessive heat stress may negatively impact cognitive function.The role of habitual physical activity on cognitive function under heat stress is unclear.Thus, we investigated the influence of physical activity status on the cognitive performance of healthy individuals after acute passive heat exposure.Methods: Our study involved non-randomised quasi-experimental controlled trials where 28 participants (active: n=13, 4 females, less-active: n=15, 5 females) underwent 45-min hot water immersion (HWI).Participants immersed their lower limbs in 42°C water in a seated position for 15 min before they wore a disposable raincoat and continued immersion for 30 min.Estimated core temperature via non-invasive CORE sensor, heart rate, ratings of thermal sensation and thermal comfort were monitored.Pre-and post-immersion, the participants performed Stroop task and Iowa gambling task (IGT) to assess selective attention, executive function and decision-making.Results: After HWI, both active and less-active participants attained hyperthermia (38.5 ± 0.4°C and 38.3 ± 0.4°C, respectively; p = 0.247).During HWI, the heart rate profiles, and subjective ratings were comparable between groups regardless of training status.Both groups exhibited faster reaction times and preserved accuracies in the Stroop task post-HWI, with no performance differences between groups.Conversely, only the active group exhibited an improved net IGT score post-HWI (Pre: -10.3 ± 30.1, Post: 10.9 ± 27.4; p = 0.027), indicating better decision-making abilities.Conclusion: When exposed to the same thermal stress, active individuals displayed better decisionmaking with reduced risk-taking than less-active individuals with comparable physiological strain.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".