MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415950773 · doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2025.100728

Ecological momentary assessment of physical activity and affective responses in healthy adults: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4415950773 on OpenAlexafffund
Benoît Plante, Paule Miquelon, Pier‐Olivier Caron

Bibliographic record

VenueMental health and physical activity · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Generalizability theoryPhysical activityValence (chemistry)ArousalExperience sampling method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Affective experiences, including emotions and moods, are central to well-being. Physical activity (PA) is linked to improved mood, but the acute relationship between objectively measured PA and affect in daily life remains underexplored. Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) minimizes biases of retrospective reports and captures real-time effects. This scoping review synthesizes studies using EMA and accelerometers to examine the acute (within 30 minutes) effects of PA on positive and negative affect in healthy adults, highlighting methodological diversity and future research needs. A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SportDiscus identified studies involving healthy adults that used EMA, accelerometer-based PA measures, and assessed acute PA effects on affect. Data extraction followed the CREMAS protocol, focusing on sample characteristics, PA and affect measures, compliance rates, and moderators. From 208 identified studies, 14 met the inclusion criteria. Studies varied in sample size, accelerometer placement, affect measurement scales, prompt frequency, and compliance, complicating comparisons. PA was consistently linked to increased arousal; findings for valence and positive affect were mixed. Negative affect tended to decrease after PA, but results were inconsistent. Several studies explored moderators, such as competence, autonomy, and social context. EMA is a valuable method for studying PA and affect dynamics in everyday life. However, methodological heterogeneity calls for more standardized protocols. Future research should improve transparency in reporting, explore additional moderators, and recruit more diverse samples to enhance generalizability . • Accelerometer-based PA is linked to increased arousal in real-world settings • Mixed results are observed for PA effects on valence and positive affect • Methodological heterogeneity limits generalizability across studies • Future studies should adopt standardized EMA and PA protocols

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.069
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.069
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0210.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.445 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMental health and physical activitySame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207