Effects of Neuromotor and Aerobic Training on Executive Functions in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies investigating the effects of exercise on cognition in animals and humans do not permit to clarify if these effects are specific to the type of exercise and if the cognitive gains for a developing brain are global or exclusive to certain cognitive functions. Considering the neuronal circuit between the cerebellum and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, we hypothesised that neuromotor training will improve executive functions associated with prefrontal cortex. Because aerobic training positively affected different cognitive functions in previous studies, we hypothesise that this type of exercise will improve executive functions and long-term memory. PURPOSE: To compare the effects of a neuromotor and of an aerobic exercise training program on cognitive functions in children. METHODS: Each of three sixth grade classes (mean age = 11.4 years) were randomly assigned to a neuromotor training (n=20), an aerobic training (n=19), and a control condition (n=15). We ensured that the motor training did not stimulate aerobic capacity and that the aerobic intervention was devoid of a motor training component. The exercise sessions for the two training groups consisted of 30 minutes per school day, took place during class time, and lasted for 10 weeks; the control group followed the regular school program. Motor and cognitive tests were administered before and after the intervention. Group comparisons were made with a series of ANOVA's, and significant interactions were investigated with planned comparisons. RESULTS: Physical adaptations induced by each type of training were specific to the activities: aerobic training significantly increased aerobic capacity (p<0.001) and neuromotor training significantly improved balance (p<0.05). The neuromotor training enhanced performance on tasks related to executive functions dependent on the fronto-cerebellar circuit. Specifically, there was a significant improvement on the verbal fluency task (p<0.05) and a marginal effect on the verb generation task (p=0.068). In contrast, the aerobic training only led to a marginal improvement for verbal fluency (p=0.057). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show differential improvements in executive functions induced by neuromotor training compared to the aerobic training intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".