Effects of soccer instruction on the executive functions and agility of children in early childhood

Sho Aoyama

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312265

. 2024 Oct 23;19(10):e0312265. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312265

Effects of soccer instruction on the executive functions and agility of children in early childhood

Sho Aoyama ^1,^*

Editor: Mario André da Cunha Espada²

PMCID: PMC11498701 PMID: 39441840

Abstract

Studies have shown that in open-skill sports the executive function of high-performing players is significantly higher than that of the control group. However, whether participation in soccer effectively improves executive function is unclear because previous studies lacked baseline measurements of executive function. Furthermore, agility, mostly developed in early childhood, is the most demanding component of physical fitness in open-skill sports, requiring sudden changes in body direction while running at full speed. However, no studies have examined the improvement in agility of young children participating in open-skill sports through comparison with a control group. This study aimed to clarify whether instruction in soccer, an open-skill sport, can effectively improve the executive function and agility of kindergarteners compared to a control group. In April 2020, 31 five-year-old children enrolled in kindergarten K in H prefecture in Japan were targeted as the intervention group and received soccer instruction for 12 weeks. In April 2020, a control group was established, consisting of 39 five-year-old children enrolled at the same kindergarten. Participants in both groups were measured for agility, inhibition, and working memory before and after (pre–post) soccer instruction for the intervention group. For each item, a two-way ANOVA of the group (intervention group・control group) x measurement period (pre–post) was performed, showing no significant interactions for working memory and agility. Because only the inhibition effect was significant, simple main effects were tested. Regarding inhibition, although the intervention group (M = 0.18, SD = 0.01) and the control group (M = 0.17, SD = 0.01) did not differ significantly in performance pre-intervention, the intervention group (M = 0.23, SD = 0.01) showed significantly better performance post-intervention compared to the control group (M = 0.19, SD = 0.01) (p < .01). Thus, soccer instruction improved kindergarteners’ inhibition, to a level significantly higher than that of the control group. Still, no differences were found between groups regarding working memory and agility.

Introduction

Exercise is important to improve physical fitness. In recent years, research suggesting that exercise is effective not only for improving physical fitness but also cognitive function, known as executive function, has been attracting attention. Executive function is the ability to achieve goals by engaging in higher-order cognitive and behavioral control and is composed of three components: inhibition, working memory, and switching [1]. Inhibition is the ability to control dominant and automatic responses according to context [1]. Working memory is the ability to store and process information temporarily and use the stored information [1]. Switching is the ability to change the perspective of attention and prepare cognitively for the next task rule [1]. Early childhood is an ideal time to provide interventions intended to improve executive function, as executive function develops considerably during this period [2]. In addition, executive function plays a crucial role in children’s future health status and socioeconomic status as well as school readiness in terms of behavior and learning [3–6]. Therefore, improving executive function during early childhood is critical.

Studies have suggested that aerobic exercise is effective in improving executive function in children [7]. For example, in a study of children with an average age of 9.6 years, performance on a task measuring working memory was compared between two groups, one with high aerobic capacity and the other with low aerobic capacity, based on the number of laps in a 20-meter shuttle run, which measures aerobic capacity. The results showed that the working memory of the group with high aerobic exercise capacity was significantly higher than that of the group with low aerobic exercise capacity [8]. In a study of children aged 8 to 12 years, children engaged in 12 weeks of aerobic exercise with increasing workload over time showed significantly better inhibition performance than children in a group engaged in a standard physical education class [9]. Davis et al. [10] reported that a 13-week aerobic exercise-based program for 7- to 11-year-old children who were inactive and overweight resulted in substantially improved inhibition compared to the control group.

On the other hand, in recent years, studies have indicated that performing complex exercises with high cognitive demands is more effective in improving executive function than performing simple exercises such as aerobic exercises [11]. Therefore, engagement in open-skill sports, such as soccer and tennis, defined as sports in which the sports environment is constantly changing and unpredictable, such as complex exercises with high cognitive demands, may be effective in improving executive function. Wang et al. [12] compared the performance of a task measuring inhibition between tennis players in open-skill sports, swimmers in closed-skill sports, and non-athletes as a control group. As a result, tennis players performed significantly better than swimmers and non-athletes in the task measuring inhibition. It has been reported that the performance of elite child soccer players in the task measuring inhibition was significantly higher than that of non-elite soccer players [13, 14]. In addition, a study of elite child soccer players revealed that players with higher working memory capacity had higher motor skills required for soccer [15].

Several studies have shown that in open-skill sports, particularly soccer, the performance of high-performing players on tasks measuring executive functions, such as inhibition and working memory, was significantly higher than that of the control group. However, the lack of baseline measurements is a major limitation in these previous studies. That is, because the original level of executive function prior to soccer participation is unknown, whether soccer participation is effective in improving executive function remains unclear. Establishing a causal relationship between soccer participation and improved executive function after baseline measurements is a task for future research. Due to the constant changes in the surrounding environment during a game, soccer requires players to keep abreast of constantly changing information about their surroundings and select appropriate behavior while inhibiting their pre-planned responses in response to changing circumstances [16, 17]. Therefore, participation in soccer is expected to improve inhibition and working memory abilities, which are components of executive function.

Furthermore, in open-skill sports, athletes’ physical fitness is crucial for high performance in games [18]. Among the elements of physical fitness, agility, especially related to quick whole-body movements to change speed and direction in response to external stimuli, is the most important element, requiring sudden changes in body direction while running at full speed [19, 20]. Although it is not possible to ascertain the level of agility before engaging in open-skill sports, high levels of agility have been observed in athletes of various open-skill sports [21]. Agility is required for instantaneous responses to the constantly changing external environment of opponents, teammates, and the ball [20] and is thought to be enhanced through participation in open-skill sports. In addition, agility, which is closely related to nervous system development, is a crucial component of physical fitness that contributes considerably to motor skills in early childhood [22]. However, to date, no studies have examined the improvement in agility of young children participating in open-skill sports through comparison with a control group.

The present study

Does soccer instruction improve executive function and agility, which are markedly developed in early childhood? This study aimed to clarify, through comparison with a control group, whether soccer instruction can effectively improve executive function and agility in inexperienced open-skill sports participants in early childhood. By targeting inexperienced open-skill athletes, it was possible to examine whether engaging in open-skill sports increased executive function and agility, considering the differences in original executive function and agility not been revealed in previous studies. This study hypothesized that the intervention group that received soccer instruction would show significantly improved executive function and agility compared to the control group. This study is expected to create new value for participation in open-skill sports by effectively enhancing executive function, an important ability for school readiness in terms of behavior and learning, and agility, an important component of physical fitness, in early childhood.

Materials and methods

Participants

The intervention group consisted of 31 five-year-old children (17 boys, 14 girls; mean age: 71.21 ± 0.5 months) enrolled at K kindergarten in H prefecture, Japan, in April 2020. The control group consisted of 39 five-year-old children (18 boys, 21 girls; mean age: 72.4 ± 0.6 months) enrolled at the same K kindergarten in H prefecture as the intervention group, in April 2020. When recruiting participants, individuals with prior participation in open-skill sports, including soccer, were excluded. Therefore, all participants were children who had never previously participated in open-skill sports, including soccer. Sample size calculations with G*Power 3.1 indicated that 31 children in the intervention group and 39 children in the control group had a power (1−β) of 0.80, effect size of 0.15, the number of measurements = 3, correlation among repeated measures = 0.5, nonsphericity correction e = 1, and an α level of .05 [23].

Procedure

The intervention group received soccer instruction once a week for 30 minutes in the morning for 12 weeks, from May to July 2020, in a field next to their kindergarten building. Specifically, as an introduction to the first soccer lesson, the participants were told that they were to kick a soccer ball with their feet into a goal on the opposing team’s court. The same content was used in each session: 5 minutes of dribbling with a soccer ball as a warm-up, followed by 20 minutes of a soccer game. The teams consisted of four teams of seven to eight players each, and two ten-minute matches were played. The soccer court was 35m long (touchline) x 20m wide (goal line). The soccer goal used was 2m high, 3m wide, and 1m deep. A soccer ball was used in the soccer game, and the rule was that a player could score one point by kicking the ball into the goal of the opposing team’s court. If the soccer ball went out of court, one player from the team opposite to the team that kicked the ball out of the court from the place where the ball went out of the court, kicked the soccer ball, and restarted the game. Goalkeepers were not assigned to either team. Children on the team that was not playing the game were instructed to observe the team playing the game. Afterward, the children performed stretch exercises for 5 minutes as a cool-down exercise. Soccer instruction was provided by a male kindergarten teacher who had experience playing soccer and worked at the participants’ kindergarten. The decision to participate in soccer instruction was made by the parents before the first soccer instruction session based on their own free will. The intervention group consisted of young children who decided to participate in soccer instruction. Executive function and agility were measured in April 2020 (pre-), before soccer instruction was implemented, and again in August 2020 (post-), after soccer instruction was completed.

While the intervention group received soccer instruction, the control group participated in voluntary indoor play in the kindergarten classroom. The specific content of the indoor play included drawing pictures, making crafts, reading picture books, and playing with toys. The children in the control group did not receive soccer instruction. As with the intervention group, executive function and agility were measured in April 2020 (pre-) and August 2020 (post-).

Measurements

Executive function and agility were measured by the author, the researcher, in a room at the park where the subject belongs, while the participant was being filmed by a video camera. The results of each measurement were confirmed by reviewing the video recordings. To reduce study bias, the researcher conducting the evaluation was blinded to the group allocation during the evaluation phase.

Execution functions

The Flanker task [24] was used to measure the inhibition of executive function. Four flanker stimuli consisting of arrow tips (Congruent: < < < < <, > > > > >, Incongruent: > > < > >, < < > < <) were used as the task stimuli. The participants were asked to tap either the left or right option with their fingers according to the orientation of the central target of the flanker stimuli presented on the tablet screen. Four task stimulus patterns were performed in random order with equal probabilities for a total of eight trials. The number of correct responses, number of questions, and elapsed time were used to calculate the performance score (PS) using the formula PS = (number of correct responses/number of questions) × (number of correct responses/elapsed time) [25], with higher PS values indicating greater inhibition ability [25]. This task requires inhibition because the participants must control flanker stimuli other than the central target. The reliability and validity of the flanker task as a measure of inhibition have been confirmed by previous research [24].

To measure working memory, which is part of executive function, we administered the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children- 2nd Edition (KABC-II) hand movement task [26]. The participants were instructed to memorize and accurately repeat combinations of the evaluator’s hand movements in sequence. This task requires visual working memory, which refers to retaining spatial information and responding quickly to the stored information. One point was awarded for each completed task, and the task was terminated after three consecutive incorrect attempts. Higher scores indicated greater working memory capacity. The reliability and validity of the hand movement task for measuring working memory have been confirmed by previous research [26].

Agility

A single-line lateral jumping task [27] was performed to measure agility. The participant stood on one side of a single line drawn facing the evaluator. On cue to start, the child performed a side hop repetition with both feet together for 5 seconds. The evaluator counted the number of times the participant jumped over the line and back. A higher number of repetitions indicated greater agility. This task requires agility because the participant must change body position or direction of movement as quickly as possible. The reliability and validity of the single-line lateral jump task in measuring agility have been confirmed in previous studies [27].

Ethics statement

This study was conducted after explaining the purpose of the study in writing to the parents of the infants who were the participants of the study and obtaining their written consent. We confirmed that they would not be disadvantaged even if they did not consent, that they could withdraw their consent even after providing it and that the personal information obtained in the study would be handled carefully so that it would not be leaked. The recruitment period for participants in this study was from March 23 to March 27, 2020. This study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Hiroshima Jogakuin University, the author’s previous institution, on March 14, 2020 (approval number: 2019–12), before the purpose of the study was explained in writing to the participants.

Data analysis

There was no missing data for the 70 participants in the intervention and control groups combined, so analyses were conducted using data from all subjects. A t-test was used to examine the differences by gender for each measurement item. Cohen’s d for t-test was calculated for independent groups. Normality test was conducted for each measurement item to confirm the assumptions of analysis of variance. To examine the effects of the measurement items on development in the intervention and control groups, a two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for each measurement item in both groups, dividing the items by group (intervention group and control group) and measurement timing (pre- and post-test). All analyses were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 27 (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA).

Results

Table 1 shows the results of unpaired t-tests on gender differences in each measurement item. The results showed no significant differences in any of the measures, and no gender differences were observed.

Table 1. Results of unpaired t-tests on gender differences in each measurement item.

Measures	pre				t-value	Effect size	post				t-value	Effect size
	Male		Female		t-value	Effect size	Male		Female		t-value	Effect size
	M	SD	M	SD	t	d	M	SD	M	SD	t	d
Flanker task	0.16	0.04	0.18	0.04	1.62	0.81	0.19	0.06	0.21	0.05	1.82	0.54
Working memory	9.46	2.52	10.40	2.60	1.54	0.37	11.54	2.23	12.31	2.19	1.46	0.35
Agility	14.94	3.66	15.26	3.51	0.37	0.09	20.57	5.57	21.29	2.98	0.67	0.16

Open in a new tab

Notes. M = mean; SD = standard deviation

The Shapiro–Wilk test showed that data gathered from each measurement item did not deviate from the normal distribution. Therefore, we conducted a two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each measurement item by group (intervention group and control group) × measurement time (pre and post). The results of the analysis of variance for each measurement item for the participants are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Analysis of variance results for each measurement item.

Measures	Intervention				Control				Main effect (time)	Main effect (group)	Interaction	Effect size
	pre		post		pre		post		F	F	F	η ²
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	F	F	η ²
Flanker task	0.18	0.01	0.23	0.01	0.17	0.01	0.19	0.01	33.36^***	2.24	4.86^*	0.07
Working memory	10.13	0.48	12.10	0.44	9.77	0.40	11.79	0.33	44.39^***	0.44	0.01	0.00
Agility	15.48	0.57	21.2	0.82	14.79	0.62	20.72	0.71	123.09^***	0.50	0.04	0.00

Open in a new tab

*p < .05

***p < .001

Analysis of variance revealed that the interaction was not significant for working memory (F (1,68) = 0.01, p = .92, η² = 0.00) and agility (F (1,68) = 0.04, p = .84, η² = 0.00). On the other hand, the interaction for the inhibition was significant (F (1,68) = 4.86, p < .05, η² = 0.07). According to conventional benchmarks, a small effect size is η² = 0.01, a medium effect size is η² = 0.06, and a large effect size is η² = 0.14 [28]. Thus, the effect size of the interaction for the inhibition was medium to large. A simple main-effect test was conducted because the interaction was significant for the inhibition. As a result, in terms of inhibition, although there was no significant difference in the performance of the intervention group (M = 0.18, SD = 0.01) and the control group (M = 0.17, SD = 0.01) at the pre-intervention stage, the intervention group (M = 0.23, SD = 0.01) showed significantly better performance post-intervention compared to the control group (M = 0.19, SD = 0.01) (p < .01). In terms of inhibition, post (M = 0.23, SD = 0.01) was significantly higher (p < .001) than pre (M = 0.18, SD = 0.01) in the intervention group, and post (M = 0.19, SD = 0.01) was significantly higher (p < .01) than pre (M = 0.17, SD = 0.01) in the control group, too.

The results of the analysis of variance for inhibition showed a significant interaction, indicating a difference in the development of the two groups. Although no significant difference between the two groups was observed pre-intervention, the intervention group’s post-intervention performance improved significantly more than the control group. However, the results of the analysis of variance for working memory and agility showed no significant interaction. Thus, soccer instruction for kindergarteners with no experience in open-skill sports can significantly improve inhibition but not working memory and agility, where no effect was observed.

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate whether soccer instruction provided to five-year-old children improved their executive function and agility through comparison with a target group. The results showed that the intervention group, which received soccer instruction, showed significantly enhanced inhibition performance in executive function compared with the control group. However, there was no difference in the improvement of working memory and agility in the executive function of the intervention group that received soccer instruction compared with the control group.

Several previous studies [12, 14, 15] have reported that players with a higher soccer ability have a higher inhibition ability than those with a lower ability. The present results, in which inhibition was significantly improved by coaching soccer to young children compared with the control group, are similar to those of previous studies. However, the present study revealed that soccer instruction significantly increased inhibition in inexperienced soccer players compared to the control group, considering their ability to inhibit before participating. Soccer requires quick reactions to the movements of the outside world, including the ball, teammates, and opponents. It also requires inhibition because of the need to control one’s intended action to select a new and better action among options, such as passing, dribbling, and shooting, in response to constantly changing surroundings [12]. Even beginners who have difficulty handling the ball with their feet and only follow the path of the ball during a soccer game require inhibition to control their behavior according to the path of the ball [12]. Therefore, the inhibition in the intervention group, which received continuous soccer instruction, likely improved to the point where it was significantly higher than that in the control group.

Because soccer requires working memory to constantly update changing information about the surroundings [17], we expected that the development of working memory in the intervention group, which received soccer instruction, would be significantly improved compared to the control group. However, the results of the present study showed no significant differences in the development of working memory between the intervention and control groups. Soccer requires special skills compared to other ball games, mainly in terms of handling the ball with the feet [29]. In addition, feet are less sensitive than hands, and long-term training is required to stop the ball, pass it, and shoot accurately during soccer [29]. When the participants in this study were observed playing a soccer game, some children had difficulty controlling the ball and were desperate to follow its path from start to finish. In this situation, it is difficult for them to update information about their surroundings, such as their opponents and peers, when focusing only on the whereabouts of the ball. Therefore, we suspect that the intervention group, which received soccer instruction, did not show significantly improved development of working memory compared with the control group. Previous studies [13, 15] have reported that the working memory of high-performing soccer players is significantly better than that of controls. However, most studies were conducted on skilled soccer players who had been playing soccer continuously since childhood when they were older than infants. To improve working memory, it may be necessary to provide soccer instruction for a longer period so that the players can control the ball to some extent and thus update information about the movements around them, in addition to paying attention to where the ball is going.

The results showed that soccer instruction was effective in improving the inhibition of executive function in young children but not effective in improving working memory. Executive function develops substantially in the early preschool years. On the other hand, the developmental timing of each component of the executive function is not the same owing to different developmental pathways. In contrast to inhibition, which develops rapidly during infancy, switching and working memory have important developmental periods between the ages of 7 and 9 years [4]. Accordingly, the intervention effects of soccer instruction might have been more pronounced than those of working memory because the five-year-old children who participated in this study were undergoing a critical period in the development of inhibition. A previous study [30] that examined the effects of an intervention program intended to improve executive function in five-year-old children reported that the effects on inhibition were pronounced, in contrast to working memory, where no intervention effects were observed, showing results similar to those of the present study.

It has been reported that skilled players of open-skill sports, including soccer, have higher agility ability [21, 31]; however, the present results revealed no difference in the development of agility between the intervention and control groups instructed to play soccer. It takes considerable training time for inexperienced soccer players to control the ball and establish a game [32]. Even after 12 weeks of soccer instruction, it was difficult for the inexperienced soccer players to control the ball sufficiently well enough to win a game. In situations where ball control is difficult, it is challenging for young children to demonstrate agility [33], which is required when responding instantaneously to changing external conditions, such as opponents, teammates, and the ball. Therefore, 12 weeks of soccer instruction likely did not improve the agility of inexperienced soccer players compared with the control group. Future research is needed to determine whether a longer period of soccer instruction would improve children’s agility to gain control over the ball to compete in a game.

In the present study, inhibition was shown to be more effective than agility for which soccer instruction was ineffective. Inhibition, the ability to contextualize and control dominant, automatic responses, is required when discontinuing intended actions and making new behavioral decisions in response to rapidly changing game situations [1, 14]. Therefore, soccer instructions are expected to improve inhibition. However, even if players can inhibit their intended behaviors, they still need ball control skills to demonstrate agility in executing new behaviors such as passing, dribbling, and shooting. As mentioned earlier, soccer instruction did not lead to improved agility because it was difficult for the participants with no soccer experience to control the ball with their feet, making it challenging for them to demonstrate agility.

Executive function is a cognitive ability whose development can be promoted by intervention and training [34, 35]. Intervention studies intended to improve children’s executive function have been conducted worldwide [36]. While it is argued that executive function develops rapidly in early childhood, which is the ideal time to conduct interventions to effectively enhance it [2], few intervention studies have been conducted on young children to improve executive function through exercise. In addition, studies have shown that the executive function of athletes in open-skill sports, particularly soccer, is significantly higher than that of the control group. However, because the original level of executive function before soccer participation cannot be determined, whether soccer participation is effective in improving executive function has not been examined. Regarding these points, the present study revealed that the inhibition of executive function was significantly improved in five-year-old children with no experience of learning open-skill sports, who had never played soccer before, after 12 weeks of continuous soccer instruction compared to the control group. This study is important because it provides new scientific evidence on the value of young children’s participation in open-skill sports in terms of the improvement of inhibition of executive function. The transition from kindergarten to elementary school is fraught with various difficulties, and children’s inhibition is an essential ability that leads to successful school adjustment, as adjustment to the classroom and learning is a more important issue in elementary school than it was in kindergarten [37]. This study is significant as it demonstrates that participation in open-skill sports can effectively enhance inhibition, which is a critical executive function ability crucial for elementary school readiness.

The results of this study highlight the significance of including open-skill sports such as soccer in the design of physical education programs conducted during nursery hours in the hope of improving inhibition. In recent years, extracurricular activities outside nursery hours, including soccer, have become common worldwide. The results demonstrate the significance of parents choosing soccer as an extracurricular activity for their children in terms of improving inhibition, which is part of the executive function playing a key role in behavioral and academic readiness for school. A study comparing the executive functions of talented youth soccer players belonging to a youth academy of a professional soccer club with those of amateur youth soccer players reported that although there was no significant difference in working memory, the talented youth soccer players had significantly better inhibition than the amateur youth soccer players [17]. The results of the present study, which targeted kindergarteners with no soccer experience, also suggested that inhibition, one of the executive functions, is particularly required when playing soccer. This result creates new knowledge that inhibition may be essential for success in soccer in various divisions, such as professional and amateur soccer teams.

The present study had several limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small, and the children were from kindergartens in the same area, which limits generalizability. Second, parents choose whether their children would receive soccer instruction as members of an intervention group, which could lead to self-selection bias. Third, this study measured inhibition and working memory, but other aspects of executive function, such as switching, were not evaluated, which limits the results. Future studies are needed to secure a large sample size from a wide range of regions and randomly assign children to the intervention and control groups to examine the effects of participation in open-skill sports on improving executive function and agility.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

pone.0312265.s001.xlsx^{(15.9KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the participants for their cooperation.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [Grant Number 24K20638]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41: 49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Blair C, Razza RP. Relating effortful control, executive function and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Dev. 2007;78: 647–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Anderson VA, Anderson P, Northam E, Jacobs R, Catroppa C. Development of executive functions through late childhood and adolescence in an Australian sample. Dev Neuropsychol. 2001;20: 385–406. doi: 10.1207/S15326942DN2001_5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Anderson P. Assessment and development of executive function during childhood. Child Neuropsychol. 2002;8: 71–82. doi: 10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Harrington H, et al. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108: 2693–2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010076108 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Gooch D, Thompson P, Nash HM, Snowling MJ, Hulme C. The development of executive function and language skills in the early school years. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016;57: 180–187. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12458 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Hillman CH, Castelli DM, Buck SM. Aerobic fitness and neurocognitive function in healthy preadolescent children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37: 1967–1974. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000176680.79702.ce . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Hillman CH, Pontifex MB, Castelli DM, Khan NA, Raine LB, Scudder MR, et al. Effects of the FITKids randomized controlled trial on executive control and brain function. Academy of Pediatrics. 2014;134: 1063–1071. doi: 10.1111/psyp.13017 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Tuckman BW, Hinkle JS. An experimental study of the physical and psychological effects of aerobic exercise on schoolchildren. Health Psychol. 1986;5: 197–207. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.5.3.197 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Davis CL, Tomporowski PD, McDowell JE, Austin BP, Miller PH, Yanasak NE, et al. Exercise improves executive function and achievement and alters brain activation in overweight children: a randomized controlled trial. Health Psychol. 2011;30: 91–98. doi: 10.1037/a0021766 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Diamond A. Effects of physical exercise on executive functions: going beyond simply moving to moving with thought. Ann Sports Med Res. 2015;2: 1011. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Wang CH, Chang CC, Liang YM, Shih CM, Chiu WS, Tseng P, et al. Open vs. closed skill sports and the modulation of inhibitory control. PLOS ONE. 2013;8: e55773. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055773 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Sakamoto S, Takeuchi H, Ihara N, Ligao B, Suzukawa K. Possible requirement of executive functions for high performance in soccer. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0201871. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201871 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Huijgen BCH, Leemhuis S, Kok NM, Verburgh L, Oosterlaan J, Elferink-Gemser MT. Cognitive functions in elite and sub-elite youth soccer players aged 13 to 17 years. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: 1–13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144580 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Scharfen HE, Memmert D. The relationship between cognitive functions and sport-specific motor skills in elite youth soccer players. Front Psychol. 2019;10: 817. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00817 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Vestberg T, Reinebo G, Maurex L, Ingvar M, Petrovic P. Core executive functions are associated with success in young elite soccer players. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0170845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170845 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Verburgh L, Scherder EJA, van Lange PAM, Oosterlaan J. Executive functioning in highly talented soccer players. PLOS ONE. 2014;9: e91254. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091254 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Lees A, Nolan L. The biomechanics of soccer: a review. J Sports Sci. 1998;16: 211–234. doi: 10.1080/026404198366740 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Sheppard JM, Young WB. Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci. 2006;24: 919–932. doi: 10.1080/02640410500457109 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Trecroci A, Longo S, Perri E, Iaia FM, Alberti G. Field-based physical performance of elite and sub-elite middle-adolescent soccer players. Res Sports Med. 2019;27: 60–71. doi: 10.1080/15438627.2018.1504217 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Thieschäfer L, Büsch D. Development and trainability of agility in youth: A systematic scoping review. Front Sports Act Living. 2022;4: 952779. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.952779 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Aoyama S, Imai-Matsumura K. Influences of executive functions on agility and comprehensive physical ability in kindergarteners. Early Child Dev Care. 2022;192: 535–544. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2020.1773811 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
23.Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G* power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39: 175–191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept Psychophys. 1974;16: 143–149. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3758/BF03203267. [Google Scholar]
25.Geldmacher DS. Effects of stimulus number and target to distractor ratio on the performance of random array letter cancellation tasks. Brain Cogn. 1996;32: 405–415. doi: 10.1006/brcg.1996.0073 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Bain SK, Gray R. Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. 2nd ed. Circle Pines, MN: AGS. J Psychoeducational; Assess. 2008;26: 92–101. doi: 10.1177/0734282907300461 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Goshi F, Demura S, Kasuga K, Sato S, Minami M. Selection of effective tests of motor ability in preschool children based on pass-or-fail criteria: examination of reliability, objectivity, and rate of passing. Percept Mot Skills. 1999;88: 169–181. doi: 10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.169 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112: 155–159. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Mitchell SA, Oslin JL, Griffin LL. Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games approach. 2nd ed. Human Kinetics Publishers; ISBN: 0736054537; 2006. [Google Scholar]
30.Imai-Matsumura K, Schultz D. Development of the START program for academic readiness and its impact on behavioral self-regulation in Japanese kindergarteners. Early Child Educ J. 2022;50: 855–866. doi: 10.1007/s10643-021-01213-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Formenti D, Trecroci A, Duca M, Cavaggioni L, D’Angelo F, Passi A, et al. Differences in inhibitory control and motor fitness in children practicing open and closed skill sports. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 4033. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82698-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Russell M, Kingsley M. Influence of exercise on skill proficiency in soccer. Sports Med. 2011;41: 523–539. doi: 10.2165/11589130-000000000-00000 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Krolo A, Gilic B, Foretic N, Pojskic H, Hammami R, Spasic M, et al. Agility testing in youth football (soccer)players; evaluating reliability, validity, and correlates of newly developed testing protocols. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17: 294. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010294 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Brocki KC, Karin C, Bohlin G. Executive functions in children aged 6 to 13: a dimensional and developmental Study. Dev Neuropsychol. 2004;26: 571–593. doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn2602_3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR, Miller-Loncar CL. Early maternal and child influences on children’s later independent cognitive and social functioning. Child Dev. 2000;71: 358–375. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00150 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Diamond A, Lee K. Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4–12 years old. Science. 2011;333: 959–964. doi: 10.1126/science.1204529 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.McClelland MM, Cameron CE. Self-regulation and academic achievement in elementary school children. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2011;2011: 29–44. doi: 10.1002/cd.302 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312265.r001

Decision Letter 0

Mario André da Cunha Espada

22 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-26769Effects of soccer instruction on the executive functions and agility of children in early childhoodPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aoyama,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mário André da Cunha Espada, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Early-Career Scientists Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [Grant Number 24K20638].

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figure/Table/etc. S1 which you refer to in your text on page 13.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Please consider the recommendations of reviewer 1 and 2 regarding the initial version of the manuscript

Thank you.

Best regards.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall, the study is an interesting idea but for better readability it needs improvements in writing and improve particularly in the study's methodology and results that will be discussed in the relevant section.

Abstract:

The abstract could be better structured to enhance readability.

The abstract does not mention the outcome related to agility, even though it is a central focus of the study.

In the results sentences: Clarify the comparison of pre- and post-test scores within the intervention and control groups, as the current phrasing might confuse readers.

In overall, by improving the clarity, structure, and inclusion of all relevant results, the abstract would be more comprehensive and aligned with the standards of the journal.

Introduction:

The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the relevance of exercise, particularly open-skill sports like soccer, in enhancing executive function and agility in children. Meanwhile, there are some comments for improving clarity and the flow:

The introduction repeats some information, particularly regarding inhibition and the advantages of open-skill sports. Condensing these points would improve readability, e.g., the paragraph discussing the benefits of open-skill sports (line 86-97) could be streamlined by merging similar ideas and avoiding redundancy in discussing inhibition tasks across different studies.

The section discussing the limitations of previous studies in establishing a causal relationship between soccer participation and improved executive function could be more precise (line:64-70 and 79-85). It might help to explicitly state that the lack of baseline measures is a significant limitation in previous research.

The purpose of the study is clear, but it could be emphasized more by separating it into its own paragraph and explicitly stating the research questions or hypotheses.

Method:

To report average and mean of the age for five years old, by months or year ±SD, Refer to the PLOS one priority format (line 110- 114).

The methodology is well-structured and covers essential aspects of the study, but it has several weaknesses that could affect the study's validity, reliability, and generalizability. Addressing these issues would support the study design and improve the strength of the findings, e.g.,:

As a Small Sample Size study: The intervention group consists of only 31 children, and the control group has 39. While this might be sufficient for a pilot study, the small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. The results may not be representative of the broader population of five-year-old children. Then it needs to be considered as the study limitation.

As a Single Study Location: All participants are from the same kindergarten in the same prefecture, which further limits generalizability. The study’s findings might not apply to children in different geographical locations, cultural settings, or educational environments. If there is not any confidential conflict, it is better to write fully name of kindergarten (line 110 and 113).

It needs to clarify the randomization. Since the decision to participate in soccer instruction was made by the parents, leading to a potential self-selection bias. Then, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design would be stronger, if children were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group to minimize selection bias.

To control group activity, it needs to provide a detailed description of the control group’s activities or consider using an active control group that participates in another structured, non-soccer activity.

Blinding the researcher to group allocation during the assessment and analysis phases would support lessen the study bias.

Outcome Measures: The study measures inhibition and working memory, but other aspects of executive function, such as cognitive flexibility and planning, are not assessed that can be considered as limitation of the study findings.

Statistical Analysis: Lack of Detail on Statistical Methods: Include a more detailed description of the statistical methods used, such as the type of tests (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA, regression analysis), how assumptions were checked, and how missing data were handled. While the methodology mentions using a two-way ANOVA, it’s important to ensure that the assumptions of ANOVA (e.g., homogeneity of variances, normality) are met.

No Mention of Effect Size or Power Analysis: The section does not mention whether effect sizes were calculated or whether a power analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate sample size.

Ethic: Include the name of the institution, the approval number, and the date of approval.

Results:

The results section provides a solid foundation for presenting the study's findings, but there are several areas where clarity and detail could be improved.

Clarify the interpretation of the interaction effect. Explain what the significant interaction means in the context of the study. For example, discuss whether the intervention was more effective for certain groups or conditions and how this relates to the overall study objectives.

Provide a brief interpretation of the effect sizes, explaining whether they are small, medium, or large according to conventional benchmarks. This will help readers understand the practical significance of the findings. Ensure that the comparison between pre and post-intervention within the control group is clearly stated, without unnecessary repetition or ambiguity

Discussion

Discussion is well-structured and provides a comprehensive analysis of the study's findings. However, I have a few suggestions to improve clarity, coherence, and flow:

The discussion touches on the practical implications of the findings, particularly for early childhood education, but these points could be more clearly articulated.

Improvement: Expanding on how these findings could influence the design of physical education programs, or how educators and parents might apply these insights, would strengthen the practical relevance of the study.

Reviewer #2: Abstract (line 30-32): is this correct” In the intervention group, the “post-” score was significantly higher than the “pre-” score, whereas in the control group, the “post-” score was significantly higher than of the “pre-” score. Please reword.

Study needs a hypothesis.

Did participants in the intervention group have any previous experience in playing soccer---this is briefly mention in the Discussion (line 224)? Were they naïve to soccer playing until this study started? Was this performed on a regular sized soccer field? What about the size of the goal posts—same as in adult soccer?

Unclear if both or only the control group played indoor soccer?

The description of the statistics used is very limited. What is “T-value”? How was effect size calculated? The results section should better describe the two groups in terms of their characteristics. What were the inclusion / exclusion criteria sued when recruiting participants?

What are the implications of these findings for professional vs amateur teams, and also for different divisions in professional leagues?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Fariba Hossein Abadi

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE article Comments.docx

pone.0312265.s002.docx^{(15.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. 2024 Oct 23;19(10):e0312265. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312265.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

5 Sep 2024

Rebuttal Letter

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise my manuscript entitled “Effects of soccer instruction on the executive functions and agility of children in early childhood” (PONE-D-24-26769). In revised manuscript, I have carefully considered reviewers’ comments and suggestions. As instructed, I have attempted to succinctly explain changes made in reaction to all comments and replied to each comment point-by-point, and those responses are provided below. I have color-coded the appropriate text in the revised manuscript. The reviewers’ comments were very helpful in revising the manuscript, and I appreciate receiving such constructive feedback on my original submission. After addressing the issues raised, the quality of the paper is much improved.

Sincerely

Sho Aoyama, PhD

Journal requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

A. Thank you for your suggestion. I have reviewed the revised manuscript to ensure that it meets PLOS ONE style requirements.

A. The ORCID iD obtained has been verified in Editorial Manager.

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

A. The cover letter (revised) has been updated to include the following statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

4. Please upload a copy of Supporting Information Figure/Table/etc. S1 which you refer to in your text on page 13.

A. The raw data required to replicate the results of the present study created in Excel with the file name 'S1' is uploaded as Supporting Information in the Attach Files.

A. The reference to Table 1 has been added to the main text (lines 216–217).

Reviewer: 1

Thank you for the time to review this manuscript for improvement. I have revised the manuscript based on your comments, and I believe they have all been thoroughly addressed. In the file titled “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes,” the revised text is highlighted in yellow. I have included my responses to your comments below.

Abstract:

The abstract could be better structured to enhance readability. The abstract does not mention the outcome related to agility, even though it is a central focus of the study. In the results sentences: Clarify the comparison of pre- and post-test scores within the intervention and control groups, as the current phrasing might confuse readers. In overall, by improving the clarity, structure, and inclusion of all relevant results, the abstract would be more comprehensive and aligned with the standards of the journal.

A: Thank you for your suggestions. I added the results of the ANOVA for agility and working memory to the abstract. I also clarified the comparison of pre-test and post-test scores within the intervention and control groups. I improved the clarity of the abstract by revising it to clearly express the limitations from previous studies, the purpose of this study, and the main results of this study.

Introduction:

The purpose of the study is clear, but it could be emphasized more by separating it into its own paragraph and explicitly stating the research questions or hypotheses.

A: Thank you for sharing your concerns. In the introduction section, I have revised the article to avoid redundancy by summarizing previous studies which show that elite open skill sports athletes have significantly higher inhibition than control groups (lines 61–69).

I have also revised the article to clearly state that the lack of baseline measurements was a challenge in previous studies in establishing a causal relationship between soccer participation and improved executive function (lines 73–77).

I have revised the article to separate the purpose of this study into its own paragraph and explicitly state the research questions and hypotheses (lines 98–102 and 105–107).

Method:

To report average and mean of the age for five years old, by months or year ±SD, Refer to the PLOS one priority format (line 110- 114).

Blinding the researcher to group allocation during the assessment and analysis phases would support lessen the study bias.

No Mention of Effect Size or Power Analysis: The section does not mention whether effect sizes were calculated or whether a power analysis was conducted to determine the appropriate sample size.

Ethic: Include the name of the institution, the approval number, and the date of approval.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. In the method section, the mean and standard deviation of participants’ ages in months were corrected to be stated in years ± SD (lines 114–117).

As you pointed out, the relatively small sample size, participant recruitment from the same region, and the parental decision (rather than the participant’s decision) to participate in soccer instruction, which may have led to self-selection bias, are limitations of this study that need to be considered. I have added these as limitations to the Discussion section (lines 376–379). Unfortunately, confidentiality requirements prevent me from sharing the full name of the kindergarten.

To control for group activities, I added a detailed description of the control group's activities (lines 148–151).

I have added that, to reduce study bias, researchers were blinded to group allocation during the evaluation phase (lines 158–159).

As you point out, this study was unable to assess other aspects of executive function, such as switching, so I have added this as a limitation in the Discussion section (lines 379–381).

I added details about the types of tests, how assumptions were checked, how missing data were handled, and statistical methods, such as effect sizes and power analyses (lines 121–124, 203–213, and 223–224).

I have added the name of the institution that conducted the ethical review for this study, the approval number, and the approval date to the text (lines 199–202).

Results:

The results section provides a solid foundation for presenting the study's findings, but there are several areas where clarity and detail could be improved.

A: Thank you for sharing your concerns. I have added an explanation of the interaction effect to clarify its meaning considering the purpose of this study (lines 238–254). I have also added an explanation of the effect size (lines 235–237).

After clearly explaining the main results of the ANOVA on inhibition, I revised the section to report only the results of the pre–post comparisons for the intervention and control groups, respectively (lines 243–246).

Discussion

Discussion is well-structured and provides a comprehensive analysis of the study's findings. However, I have a few suggestions to improve clarity, coherence, and flow:

The discussion touches on the practical implications of the findings, particularly for early childhood education, but these points could be more clearly articulated.

A: Thank you for sharing your concerns. In the discussion section, I have added a clear explanation of how the results of this study can be applied to teachers and parents, including the design of physical education programs (lines 360–366).

Reviewer: 2

Thank you for the time to review this manuscript. I have completed revisions based on your comments, and I believe they have been fully addressed. In the file titled “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes,” the revised text is highlighted in yellow. Responses to each of your comments are included below.

Abstract (line 30-32): is this correct” In the intervention group, the “post-” score was significantly higher than the “pre-” score, whereas in the control group, the “post-” score was significantly higher than of the “pre-” score. Please reword.

A: Thank you for your suggestion. I have revised the wording in the abstract as follows to avoid misunderstandings among readers regarding the results of the analysis of variance on inhibition as the main result of this study.

‘Regarding inhibition, although the intervention group (M = 0.18, SD = 0.01) and the control group (M = 0.17, SD = 0.01) did not differ significantly in performance pre-intervention, the intervention group (M = 0.23, SD = 0.01) showed significantly better performance post-intervention compared to the control group (M = 0.19, SD = 0.01) (p < .01).’

Study needs a hypothesis.

A: Thank you for sharing your concerns. I have added the hypotheses of this study in the introduction section (lines 105–107).

A. Thank you for your suggestion. In the methods section, I noted that the study participants had no prior participation in open skill sports, including soccer (lines 118–120). The soccer played by the intervention group is different from soccer played by adults. I added details about the size of the court and goal size on which the intervention group played soccer (lines 132–134).

Unclear if both or only the control group played indoor soccer?

A. Thank you for noting this issue. Only the intervention group received soccer instruction; I have added a note to the methods section indicating that the children in the control group did not receive soccer instruction (line 151).

A. Thank you for highlighting your concerns. I have added explanations of the statistics used, including t-tests, analysis of variance, missing data, how assumptions were checked, and calculations of effect sizes in the data analysis section (lines 121–122 and 203–213).

In the results section, I have added a description of the characteristics of the two groups regarding inhibition for which the interaction was significant (lines 238–246).

In the methods section, I have added a description of the exclusion criteria used to recruit participants who had never participated in soccer, including open skill sports (lines 118–120).

What are the implications of these findings for professional vs amateur teams, and also for different divisions in professional leagues?

A. In the discussion section, I have added information about the impact the results of this study have on various sectors, includi

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0312265.s003.docx^{(22.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312265.r003

Decision Letter 1

Mario André da Cunha Espada

4 Oct 2024

Effects of soccer instruction on the executive functions and agility of children in early childhood

PONE-D-24-26769R1

Dear Dr. Sho Aoyama,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mario André da Cunha Espada, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Congratulations on the work carried out in the review process.

I propose that the authors consider the suggestions in this last phase of revision (e.g. English details improvement).

Thank you.

Best regards.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: Please edit the manuscript for English language and grammar. Perhaps recruit assistance from a native English language speaker

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript with the title - Effects of soccer instruction on the executive functions and agility of children in early childhood.

The article is well structured, and the improvements made are opportune and contribute to increasing the scientific value of the manuscript.

Recommendations: - The article is well structured and meets the scientific requirements of the journal in order to be accepted.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ismail Laher

Reviewer #3: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312265.r004

Acceptance letter

Mario André da Cunha Espada

14 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-26769R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aoyama,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mario André da Cunha Espada

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Data

(XLSX)

pone.0312265.s001.xlsx^{(15.9KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE article Comments.docx

pone.0312265.s002.docx^{(15.5KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0312265.s003.docx^{(22.9KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0312265.ref001] 1.Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41: 49–100. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0734 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref002] 2.Blair C, Razza RP. Relating effortful control, executive function and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Dev. 2007;78: 647–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref003] 3.Anderson VA, Anderson P, Northam E, Jacobs R, Catroppa C. Development of executive functions through late childhood and adolescence in an Australian sample. Dev Neuropsychol. 2001;20: 385–406. doi: 10.1207/S15326942DN2001_5 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref004] 4.Anderson P. Assessment and development of executive function during childhood. Child Neuropsychol. 2002;8: 71–82. doi: 10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref005] 5.Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Harrington H, et al. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108: 2693–2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010076108 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref006] 6.Gooch D, Thompson P, Nash HM, Snowling MJ, Hulme C. The development of executive function and language skills in the early school years. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2016;57: 180–187. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12458 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref007] 7.Hillman CH, Castelli DM, Buck SM. Aerobic fitness and neurocognitive function in healthy preadolescent children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37: 1967–1974. doi: 10.1249/01.mss.0000176680.79702.ce . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref008] 8.Hillman CH, Pontifex MB, Castelli DM, Khan NA, Raine LB, Scudder MR, et al. Effects of the FITKids randomized controlled trial on executive control and brain function. Academy of Pediatrics. 2014;134: 1063–1071. doi: 10.1111/psyp.13017 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref009] 9.Tuckman BW, Hinkle JS. An experimental study of the physical and psychological effects of aerobic exercise on schoolchildren. Health Psychol. 1986;5: 197–207. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.5.3.197 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref010] 10.Davis CL, Tomporowski PD, McDowell JE, Austin BP, Miller PH, Yanasak NE, et al. Exercise improves executive function and achievement and alters brain activation in overweight children: a randomized controlled trial. Health Psychol. 2011;30: 91–98. doi: 10.1037/a0021766 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref011] 11.Diamond A. Effects of physical exercise on executive functions: going beyond simply moving to moving with thought. Ann Sports Med Res. 2015;2: 1011. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref012] 12.Wang CH, Chang CC, Liang YM, Shih CM, Chiu WS, Tseng P, et al. Open vs. closed skill sports and the modulation of inhibitory control. PLOS ONE. 2013;8: e55773. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055773 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref013] 13.Sakamoto S, Takeuchi H, Ihara N, Ligao B, Suzukawa K. Possible requirement of executive functions for high performance in soccer. PLOS ONE. 2018;13: e0201871. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201871 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref014] 14.Huijgen BCH, Leemhuis S, Kok NM, Verburgh L, Oosterlaan J, Elferink-Gemser MT. Cognitive functions in elite and sub-elite youth soccer players aged 13 to 17 years. PLOS ONE. 2015;10: 1–13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144580 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref015] 15.Scharfen HE, Memmert D. The relationship between cognitive functions and sport-specific motor skills in elite youth soccer players. Front Psychol. 2019;10: 817. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00817 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref016] 16.Vestberg T, Reinebo G, Maurex L, Ingvar M, Petrovic P. Core executive functions are associated with success in young elite soccer players. PLOS ONE. 2017;12: e0170845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170845 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref017] 17.Verburgh L, Scherder EJA, van Lange PAM, Oosterlaan J. Executive functioning in highly talented soccer players. PLOS ONE. 2014;9: e91254. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091254 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref018] 18.Lees A, Nolan L. The biomechanics of soccer: a review. J Sports Sci. 1998;16: 211–234. doi: 10.1080/026404198366740 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref019] 19.Sheppard JM, Young WB. Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci. 2006;24: 919–932. doi: 10.1080/02640410500457109 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref020] 20.Trecroci A, Longo S, Perri E, Iaia FM, Alberti G. Field-based physical performance of elite and sub-elite middle-adolescent soccer players. Res Sports Med. 2019;27: 60–71. doi: 10.1080/15438627.2018.1504217 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref021] 21.Thieschäfer L, Büsch D. Development and trainability of agility in youth: A systematic scoping review. Front Sports Act Living. 2022;4: 952779. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.952779 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref022] 22.Aoyama S, Imai-Matsumura K. Influences of executive functions on agility and comprehensive physical ability in kindergarteners. Early Child Dev Care. 2022;192: 535–544. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2020.1773811 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref023] 23.Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G* power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39: 175–191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref024] 24.Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept Psychophys. 1974;16: 143–149. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3758/BF03203267. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref025] 25.Geldmacher DS. Effects of stimulus number and target to distractor ratio on the performance of random array letter cancellation tasks. Brain Cogn. 1996;32: 405–415. doi: 10.1006/brcg.1996.0073 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref026] 26.Bain SK, Gray R. Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. 2nd ed. Circle Pines, MN: AGS. J Psychoeducational; Assess. 2008;26: 92–101. doi: 10.1177/0734282907300461 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref027] 27.Goshi F, Demura S, Kasuga K, Sato S, Minami M. Selection of effective tests of motor ability in preschool children based on pass-or-fail criteria: examination of reliability, objectivity, and rate of passing. Percept Mot Skills. 1999;88: 169–181. doi: 10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.169 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref028] 28.Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112: 155–159. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref029] 29.Mitchell SA, Oslin JL, Griffin LL. Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games approach. 2nd ed. Human Kinetics Publishers; ISBN: 0736054537; 2006. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref030] 30.Imai-Matsumura K, Schultz D. Development of the START program for academic readiness and its impact on behavioral self-regulation in Japanese kindergarteners. Early Child Educ J. 2022;50: 855–866. doi: 10.1007/s10643-021-01213-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref031] 31.Formenti D, Trecroci A, Duca M, Cavaggioni L, D’Angelo F, Passi A, et al. Differences in inhibitory control and motor fitness in children practicing open and closed skill sports. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 4033. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82698-z . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref032] 32.Russell M, Kingsley M. Influence of exercise on skill proficiency in soccer. Sports Med. 2011;41: 523–539. doi: 10.2165/11589130-000000000-00000 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref033] 33.Krolo A, Gilic B, Foretic N, Pojskic H, Hammami R, Spasic M, et al. Agility testing in youth football (soccer)players; evaluating reliability, validity, and correlates of newly developed testing protocols. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17: 294. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17010294 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref034] 34.Brocki KC, Karin C, Bohlin G. Executive functions in children aged 6 to 13: a dimensional and developmental Study. Dev Neuropsychol. 2004;26: 571–593. doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn2602_3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref035] 35.Landry SH, Smith KE, Swank PR, Miller-Loncar CL. Early maternal and child influences on children’s later independent cognitive and social functioning. Child Dev. 2000;71: 358–375. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00150 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref036] 36.Diamond A, Lee K. Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4–12 years old. Science. 2011;333: 959–964. doi: 10.1126/science.1204529 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312265.ref037] 37.McClelland MM, Cameron CE. Self-regulation and academic achievement in elementary school children. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2011;2011: 29–44. doi: 10.1002/cd.302 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Effects of soccer instruction on the executive functions and agility of children in early childhood

Sho Aoyama

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

The present study

Materials and methods

Participants

Procedure

Measurements

Execution functions

Agility

Ethics statement

Data analysis

Results

Table 1. Results of unpaired t-tests on gender differences in each measurement item.

Table 2. Analysis of variance results for each measurement item.

Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Mario André da Cunha Espada

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Mario André da Cunha Espada

Roles

Acceptance letter

Mario André da Cunha Espada

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases