Affective and cerebral haemodynamic responses to audiovisual stimuli during exercise above and below the ventilatory threshold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Audiovisual stimuli during exercise can improve affective and perceptual responses; however, the factors moderating this benefit as well as the associated cerebral haemodynamic responses remain largely unexplored. Accordingly, the present work investigated the moderating role of exercise intensity on affective, perceptual and haemodynamic responses to audiovisual stimuli. Fifty participants (Mage = 20.24 ± 2.89 years, 45 females) were randomly assigned to either audiovisual stimuli group or control group. Both groups completed separate 20-min bouts of aerobic exercise at 10% below and 10% above participant-specific ventilatory threshold (VT). Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) was used to measure prefrontal cortex oxygenated haemoglobin (O2Hb), as marker of brain activity, during exercise. Affective valence, perceived activation, perceived exertion, and attentional focus were measured every 5 min during exercise. Data were analysed using linear mixed models with Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. The intensity × time interaction for affective valence was statistically significant (p = .02). Post hoc tests showed exercise at 10% above VT induced less pleasure than 10% below VT at 15 min (b = −0.70, p = .01) and 20 min (b = −0.96, p < .01). The time × hemisphere interaction for O2Hb was also significant (p < .01). Post hoc tests indicated that greater PFC activity was observed in the right hemisphere than in the left hemisphere at 5–10 min (b = 0.001, p < .01) during exercise. Finally, the results showed significantly greater dissociation (i.e., external thoughts) in the audiovisual group compared to the control group (b = 15.42, p < .01), The use of audiovisual stimuli during exercise represents a cost-effective intervention to shift the individual's attentional focus away from internal, typically unpleasant interoceptive sensations perceived at higher exercise intensities, to external thoughts. Exercise at an intensity below VT may be beneficial for physically inactive individuals who intend to 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".