Skip to main content
. 2026 Oct 7;17:1879513. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1879513

Table 3.

Reaction time across conditions and inferential tests.

Panel A. Descriptive statistics
Variables (N) Time HE, M (SD) LE, M (SD) AC, M (SD)
Congruent RT (ms) (N = 26) Pre 461.6 (54.2) 441.0 (39.7) 454.2 (58.6)
Post 442.0 (43.9) 432.3 (53.1) 473.7 (63.7)
ΔRT −19.6 (36.1) −8.7 (30.3) 19.5 (54.9)
Incongruent RT (ms) (HE = 26; LE = 25; AC = 26) Pre 549.6 (77.1) 516.8 (53.0) 536.9 (66.6)
Post 507.9 (50.2) 491.3 (51.5) 511.1 (73.0)
ΔRT −41.7 (50.3) −21.6 (25.4) −25.8 (58.1)
Flanker effect (ms) (HE = 26; LE = 25; AC = 26) Pre 88.0 (40.4) 75.8 (31.8) 82.7 (28.4)
Post 65.9 (34.4) 58.5 (39.4) 37.4 (47.5)
ΔRT −22.1 (27.9) −12.9 (29.3) −45.3 (47.1)
One participant was excluded from the LE incongruent RT cell after trimming because no valid responses remained. RT, reaction time; ΔRT, post-test minus pre-test; HE, high cognitively demanding exercise; LE, low cognitively demanding exercise; AC, active control.
Panel B. Inferential statistics
Variables (N) Effect F (df1, df2) p ηp2 Pairwise comparisons
RT change score (N = 25) Condition 2.53 (1.35, 32.41) 0.112 0.10 —
Congruency 34.53 (1, 24) <0.001 0.59 Incongruent > congruent: t (24) = 5.88, p < 0.001, d = 0.60, 95% CI [0.32, 0.87]
Condition × Congruency 4.93 (1.67, 40.13) 0.017 0.17 No condition differences within congruent or incongruent (all p > 0.05)
Flanker-effect change score (N = 25) Condition 4.93 (1.67, 40.13) 0.017 0.17 AC showed a greater reduction than LE: t (24) = −2.73, p = 0.035, d = −0.81, 95% CI [−1.64, 0.01]
HE vs. LE: t (24) = 1.04, p = 0.925, d = 0.21, 95% CI [−0.31, 0.73]
HE vs. AC: t (24) = −2.03, p = 0.160, d = −0.61, 95% CI [−1.40, 0.19]

One participant was excluded from the LE incongruent RT cell after trimming because no valid responses remained. RT, reaction time; HE, high cognitively demanding exercise; LE, low cognitively demanding exercise; AC, active control.