Table 1.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| Study (Authors, Methodological Quality) |
Participants Description | Study Design | Exercise Protocol | Time of EF Test Administration and Duration | EF Task | EF Domain | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Audiffren et al. [22] 5/11 |
Female: 21.11 ± 1.05 Male: 21.14 ± 0.69 (N = 18) 9M/18 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 90% VT (moderate intensity); exercise duration (40 min) |
Intermittent assessment (a total of 5 times) |
RNG | Working memory; inhibitory control |
Inhibitory control was impaired while working memory did not differ from the control conditions. The EF modulation can be interpreted as a change in strategy. |
| Davranche et al. [35] 7/11 |
30 ± 8 (N = 14) 11M/14 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 50% MAP (moderate intensity); Exercise duration (two periods of 20 min cycling) |
Four blocks of task trials were performed during a first 15-min period and another four blocks were performed during a second 15-min period. | Flanker task | Inhibitory control | The task performance was not different from the control condition. |
| Davranche and McMorris [20] 7/11 |
32 ± 9 (N = 12) 8M/12 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at VT intensity (moderate intensity); exercise duration (20 min) |
The Simon task began at the end of the 3-min warm-up period and performed within the remaining 17-min period. |
Simon task | Inhibitory control | According to the Simon effect, inhibitory control (RT) was impaired. |
| Del Giorno et al. [36] 7/11 |
20.2 ± 1.1 (N = 30) 17M/30 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 75% VT and VT intensity (light and moderate intensity); exercise duration (30 min) |
Cognitive tests began at 20 min following the onset of exercise, lasting for approximately 4 min. | CPT; WCST |
Inhibitory control; cognitive flexibility |
The performance of two tasks (RA) was impaired during exercise at both light and moderate intensities. |
| Dietrich and Sparling [21] 7/11 |
|||||||
| Exp.1 | 23.7 ± 9.4 (N = 24) 24M/24 |
Between-subject design | Cycling or running at 70–80% HRmax (vigorous intensity); exercise duration (50 min) |
Cognitive tests began after 25 min of exercise, lasting for approximately 10 min. | WCST | Cognitive flexibility | For the WCST, the exercise group made significantly more errors compared to the control group. |
| Exp.2 | 25.1 ± 6.3 (N = 8) 8M/8 |
Within-subject design | Running at vigorous intensity; exercise duration (65 min) |
After 25 min of exercise, lasting for approximately 28 min. | PASAT | Working memory | For the PASAT, the exercise condition resulted in significantly more errors than the control condition. |
| Dodwell et al. [37] 5/11 |
24.5 ± 2.6 (N = 18) 10M/18 |
Within-subject design | Cycling or running at 65% HRR intensity (vigorous intensity) |
The Retro-cue task began following 5–10 min of warm-up period, included 4 blocks of 96 trials. | Retro-cue task | Working memory | RT was facilitated in the exercise condition compared to the control condition. |
| Joyce et al. [15] 7/11 |
23 ± 2 (N = 10) 7M/10 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 40% MAP (moderate intensity); exercise duration (30 min) |
The Stop-signal task was performed whilst cycling after a 4-min warm-up period and lasted approximately 22 min. | Stop-signal task | Inhibitory control | Inhibitory control was improved during exercise (shorter RT without a change in RA). |
| Joyce et al. [26] 7/11 |
23 ± 2 (N = 12) 3M/12 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 65% of HRmax (moderate intensity); exercise duration (30 min) |
The Simon task was performed after 5-min warm-up period and lasted approximately 23 min. | Simon Task | Inhibitory control | According to the Simon effect, inhibitory control was unchanged during exercise. |
| Komiyama et al. [38] 6/11 |
21.5 ± 3.5 (N = 13) 13M/13 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 50% VO2max (moderate intensity); exercise duration (20 min) |
The EF tasks were started after a 5-min warm-up period. | Spatial DR task; Go/No-Go task |
Working memory; inhibitory control |
The task performance (RT) was improved during exercise without sacrificing RA. |
| Komiyama et al. [39] 6/11 |
23.0 ± 2.3 (N = 16) 16M/16 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at heart rate of 140 beats/min (moderate intensity); exercise duration (30 min) |
Intermittent assessment (a total of 2 times) |
Spatial DR task; Go/No-Go task |
Working memory; inhibitory control |
RA was not changed in the Spatial DR task; RT was shorter without sacrificing RA in the Go/No-Go task. |
| Komiyama et al. [23] 6/11 |
22.1 ± 1.7 (N = 17) 17M/17 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 50%VO2 peak (moderate intensity) for 8 min; thereafter, participants cycled at 80% VO2 peak (vigorous intensity) for an additional 8 min. | Participant performed the EF tasks 3 min after commencing each workload. | Spatial DR task; Go/No-Go task |
Working memory; inhibitory control |
RA of the tasks was impaired during vigorous-intensity exercise, whereas it was not changed during moderate-intensity exercise; RT was not changed during both intensity exercises. |
| Lambourne et al. [25] 7/11 |
21.1 ± 1.7 (N = 19) 8M/19 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 90% VT intensity (moderate intensity); exercise duration (40 min) |
Intermittent assessment (a total of 5 times) |
PASAT | Working memory | RA of the task in the exercise condition did not differ from the control condition. |
| Lucas et al. [40] 6/11 |
24 ± 5 (N = 13) 7M/13 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 30% followed by 70% of HRR (light and vigorous intensity); exercise duration (two 8-min bouts of cycling) |
The Stroop task involved 2 blocks of 20 trials. | Stroop task | Inhibitory control | RT was facilitated during exercise. Vigorous-intensity exercise led to greater improvement compared to light-intensity exercise. |
| Martins et al. [24] 7/11 |
|||||||
| Exp. 1 | 20.50 ± 0.89 (N = 24) 24M/24 |
Between-subject design | Cycling at moderate intensity; (short duration) |
Four blocks lasting approximately 8 min. | PASAT | Working memory | RA of the task was improved during moderate-intensity exercise. |
| Exp. 2 | 19.57 ± 0.83 (N = 120) 55M/120 |
Mixed Multi-factorial experimental design | Cycling at light and moderate intensity; (short duration) |
Two blocks lasting approximately 16 min. | Sternberg task | Working memory | Light and moderate intensity exercise lowered the response latency slopes, resulting in improved working memory. |
| McMorris et al. [41] 7/11 |
24.32 ± 7.10 (N = 24) 24M/24 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 50% and 80% MAP (moderate and vigorous intensity); exercise duration (15 min or until voluntary exhaustion) |
Intermittent assessment (a total of 3 times) |
Flanker task | Inhibitory control | Vigorous-intensity exercise impaired RT, but moderate-intensity exercise did not change the task performance. |
| Ogoh et al. [42] 6/11 |
20.4 ± 0.6 (N = 7) 7M/7 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at heart rate of 140 beats/min (moderate intensity); exercise duration (50 min) |
Intermittent assessment (a total of 4 times) |
Stroop task | Inhibitory control | RT was facilitated during exercise without any loss of performance accuracy. |
| Olson et al. [43] 7/11 |
20.4 ± 2.0 (N = 27) 16M/27 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 40% and 60% VO2peak (light and moderate intensity); exercise duration (31 min) |
Intermittent assessment (a total of 3 times) |
Flanker task | Inhibitory control | RA was impaired during both light and moderate intensity exercise, but RT was facilitated during moderate-intensity exercise. |
| Pontifex and Hillman [44] 7/11 |
20.2 ± 1.6 (N = 41) 15M/41 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 60% of HRmax (moderate intensity); exercise duration (approximately 11 min) |
The Simon task was performed after 5 min of exercise, lasing for approximately 6.5 min. | Flanker task | Inhibitory control | Exercise did not affect RT but showed a decrease in RA for incongruent trials, resulting in impaired inhibitory control. |
| Schmit et al. [45] 7/11 |
22.1 ± 0.6 (N = 15) 10M/15 |
Within-subject design | Cycling at 85% MAP until exhaustion; exercise duration (approximately 7 min) |
Participants performed the Flanker task until exhaustion. | Flanker task | Inhibitory control | RT was facilitated during exercise in the initial stage and remained unaltered in the final stage. |
| Smith et al. [46] 7/11 |
28 ± 5 (N = 15) 6M/15 |
Within-subject design | Running at moderate and high intensity; exercise duration (10 min) |
The EF task was performed during the last 2 min of exercise. | Go/No-Go task | Inhibitory control | RT was impaired during high-intensity exercise, whereas it was not changed during moderate-intensity exercise. |
| Stone et al. [19] 5/11 |
19.6 ± 2 (N = 13) 8M/13 |
Within-subject design | Conducted at an exercise intensity in an incremental manner; the average duration was between 20–24 min. | The OWAT test was administered throughout the entirety of the graded exercise test. | OWAT | Cognitive flexibility | RA was not changed at an intensity from 20% to 80% HRR, where it was impaired from 80% to 100% HRR. |
| Wang et al. [47] 7/11 |
20.51 ± 1.99 (N = 80) 49M/80 |
Between-subject design | Cycling at 30%, 50%, and 80% HRR (light, moderate, and vigorous intensity); exercise duration (30 min) |
The WCST was performed 6 min after exercise onset. | WCST | Cognitive flexibility | Cognitive flexibility (WCST indices) was impaired in the group of vigorous intensity, whereas it was not changed in groups of light and moderate intensity compared to the control group. |
M, male; Exp, experiment; WCST, Wisconsin card sorting task; PASAT, paced auditory serial addition task; RNG, random number generation; CPT, contingent continuous performance task; Spatial DR, spatial delayed response; OWAT: operator workload assessment tool; HRR, heart rate range; MAP, maximal aerobic power; PPO, peak power output; VT, ventilatory threshold; RT, reaction time; RA, response accuracy.