Title |
Is the Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Cognition a Placebo Effect?
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, October 2014
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0109557 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Cary R. Stothart, Daniel J. Simons, Walter R. Boot, Arthur F. Kramer |
Abstract |
A number of studies and meta-analyses conclude that aerobic fitness (walking) interventions improve cognition. Such interventions typically compare improvements from these interventions to an active control group in which participants engage in non-aerobic activities (typically stretching and toning) for an equivalent amount of time. However, in the absence of a double-blind design, the presence of an active control group does not necessarily control for placebo effects; participants might expect different amounts of improvement for the treatment and control interventions. We conducted a large survey to explore whether people expect greater cognitive benefits from an aerobic exercise intervention compared to a control intervention. If participants expect greater improvement following aerobic exercise, then the benefits of such interventions might be due in part to a placebo effect. In general, expectations did not differ between aerobic and non-aerobic interventions. If anything, some of the results suggest the opposite (e.g., respondents expected the control, non-aerobic intervention to yield bigger memory gains). These results provide the first evidence that cognitive improvements following aerobic fitness training are not due to differential expectations. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 14 | 23% |
United Kingdom | 6 | 10% |
Canada | 5 | 8% |
Denmark | 1 | 2% |
Mexico | 1 | 2% |
Finland | 1 | 2% |
Australia | 1 | 2% |
Brazil | 1 | 2% |
Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 2% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 28 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 35 | 58% |
Scientists | 12 | 20% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 12% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Poland | 1 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 143 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 14% |
Researcher | 20 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 19 | 13% |
Student > Master | 18 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
Other | 23 | 16% |
Unknown | 32 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 44 | 30% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 11% |
Neuroscience | 12 | 8% |
Sports and Recreations | 11 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 4% |
Other | 15 | 10% |
Unknown | 41 | 28% |