Acute effect of dual-task endurance exercise on cognitive functions and myocardial oxygen consumption; a randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTARCTDual-task exercise and its impacts on cognitive function have gained increasing attention in recent years. Targeted aerobic exercise, cardiovascular responses, and the associated improvements in cognitive performance appear promising for mitigating certain cognitive disorders, although the optimal protocol remains unclear. In this randomized controlled trial, 34 participants meeting inclusion criteria were allocated into either a standardized aerobic exercise group (BSAEgr, n = 18) or a dual-task aerobic exercise group (BIDAgr, n = 16). Cognitive status was assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Function Assessment Scale (MOCA), and reaction time performance was measured using the Nelson Reaction Test (NRT). Cardiovascular responses including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse rate, and the double product formula were evaluated before and after the intervention. The findings demonstrated that dual-task aerobic exercise led to greater improvements in cognitive function compared to standardized aerobic exercise. Significant improvements were observed in MOCA scores, NRT distance, and NRT outcome measures within the dual-task group (p < 0.005). These results provide preliminary evidence that incorporating dual-task elements into aerobic training may enhance both cognitive and cardiovascular outcomes, suggesting potential applicability in preventive and rehabilitative settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".