Exploring the Effect of Physical Exercise on Body Recognition Neural Networks: Evidence from ERPs

INTRODUCTION: The extrastriate body area (EBA), located in the lateral occipitotemporal cortex, responds robustly to human bodies and body parts [1]. Event-related potentials (ERPs) have been used to investigate this response, with studies showing that body perception modulates components like P1 and N1, reflecting early stages of visual processing [2]. Physical exercise has well-documented benefits, promoting neural plasticity and cognition, especially in regions linked to motor control [3]. However, its effect on brain areas involved in body recognition, such as the EBA, remains underexplored. We aim to investigate whether physical exercise influences neural responses in the EBA by examining changes in ERPs related to body perception. We hypothesize that physical exercise modulates electrical activity in response to body stimuli, with these effects reflected in body-related ERPs. Specifically, we expect alterations in the amplitude or latency of body-related components after aerobic exercise, suggesting neural plasticity in response to physical activity. METHODS: Young healthy subjects will undergo EEG recording with a 64-channel ActiCap system before and after 20 minutes of aerobic exercise on a cycle ergometer. Participants will view stimuli depicting the whole body, arms, and legs, both static and in motion, along with scrambled image of the same stimuli as controls. Habitual physical activity will be assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), and body image will be evaluated using the Body Image Coping Strategies Inventory (BICSI). Hand dominance will be assessed using the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Based on G*Power calculations assuming a statistical power of 80% and an effect size of 0.3 for a within-subjects ANOVA, this protocol will be conducted with 24 participants. RESULTS: Preliminary data from 14 subjects (11F, 3M; 22 ± 2.06 years; BMI: 22 ± 2.73) revealed main effects for both latency and amplitude of the P1, N1, and P2 components, depending on the stimuli compared. A significant interaction between category (lower vs. upper body), electrodes (P7, P8), and time (T0, T1) for N1 amplitude showed significant differences between categories at both P7 (p < .05) and P8 (p < .05) at T0, but not at T1, indicating a disappearance of this difference after exercise. Further analyses with 24 participants will investigate potential correlations between questionnaire scores and ERP data. CONCLUSION: Acute aerobic physical exercise appears to influence body-related ERPs, with preliminary data suggesting that the amplitude differences in the N1 component between lower and upper body stimuli observed at rest disappear after exercise, supporting the hypothesis that physical exercise can impact neural responses related to body perception. However, further analysis of the full sample is required to confirm these effects and explore the underlying mechanisms.