A single bout of moderate intensity exercise improves cognitive flexibility: evidence from task-switching

Effects of acute slackline exercise on executive function in college students

“…Although aerobic and resistance training sessions both elicited greater improvements in inhibitory control than stretching, changes in cognitive flexibility did not differ across conditions. In contrast, Shukla et al (2020) found that a 20-min session of moderate intensity aerobic exercise (via cycle ergometer) was effective in improving cognitive flexibility assessed using a task-switching paradigm involving alternating pro- and antisaccades in young adults. Moreover, two studies in adults that reported an effect on cognitive flexibility ( Berse et al, 2014 ; Barenberg et al, 2015 ) used incremental and intense ergometer cycling (with aerobic and anaerobic demands).…”

Look into my eyes: What can eye-based measures tell us about the relationship between physical activity and cognitive performance?

“… 94 , 95 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 Five trials studied the effect of chronic physical training on cognitive performance and eye-based measures, 96 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 and 18 studies investigated the influence of an acute bout of physical exercise on cognitive performance and eye-based measures. 92 , 93 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 …”

“… (3.2) SSE 170.0 ± 10.0 cm; CG 170.0 ± 10.0 cm; SSE: 94.5 ± 19.6 kg; CG: 88.4 ± 11.4 kg; SSE: 33.3 ± 4.8 kg/m 2 ; CG: 31.9 ± 4.6 kg/m 2 (1) Low intensity* (2) 60 min (including 5–10-min warm-up + 5–10-min cool-down) Pro- and antisaccade task, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Clock Drawing test, and Cambridge Brain Sciences cognitive test battery (2) ▪ (–) No statistically significant changes in pre- to post-test of pro- and antisaccade performance metrics Shirzad et al (2012) 127 (1) RCT with within-subject design and pretest/post-test comparisons (2) Passive exercise CC (i.e., mechanically driven cycle ergometer) and passive CC (i.e., seated rest) (3) Healthy younger adults (students) ▪ n = 28 (11 females/17 males) ▪ 22.3 ± 2.0 years (3.1) Recreationally active based on GLETQ (62.0 ± 26.0 points) (3.2) n.r./n.r./n.r. (1) Light intensity (37 W) * (2) 20 min (+ 2 min warm-up and cool-down, respectively) (1) Pro- and antisaccade task (2) ▪↓ antisaccade (but not prosaccade) RT from pretest to post-test ▪ ↓ Negative and low correlation between steady-state BVs and post-exercise antisaccade RTs Shukla et al (2020) 128 (1) Non-randomized trial with pretest/post-test comparisons (2) Passive CG (i.e., seated rest - Experiment 2) (3) Healthy younger adults (students) ▪ n = 35 (19 females/16 males) ▪ Experiment 1: EX: n = 20 (11 females/9 males) ▪ Experiment 2: CG: n = 15 (8 females/7 males) ▪ Experiment 1: EX: 21.3 ± 18.0 years ▪ Experiment 2: CG: 20.3 ± 2.3 years (3.1) Recreationally active based on GLETQ (EX: 65.0 ± 17.0 points; CG: 59.0 ± 18.0 points) (3.2) n.r./n.r./n.r. (1) Moderate intensity (80% of predicted HR max ) and very light intensity (<50% of predicted HR max ) (2) 20 min (+ 2.5 min warm-up and cool-down, respectively) (1) Pro- and antisaccades ordered in an AABB task-switching paradigm (2) ▪ ↓ RT switch-costs from pretest to post-test (i.e., in Experiment 1) Shukla et al (2022) 129 (1) Non-randomized trial with pretest/post-test comparisons (2) Passive CG (i.e., seated rest - Experiment 2) (3) Healthy younger adults (university students) ▪ Experiment 1: n = 20 (11 females/9 males) ▪ Experiment 2: n = 19 (10 females/9 males) ▪ Experiment 1: EX: 22.5 ± 2.5 years ▪ Experiment 2: CG: 22.2 ± 1.9 years (3.1) Recreationally active based on GLETQ (EX: 60.0 ± 19.0 points; CG: 68.0 ± 24.0 points) (3.2) n.r./n.r./n.r.…”

“…Most of the reviewed studies included younger healthy adults with normal cognitive performance (based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the respective studies) who were mainly students and could be classified as recreationally active, 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 108 , 111 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 135 , 137 whereas 6 of the studies compared different types of younger athletes. 109 , 110 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 136 The remaining trials examined (a) healthy school-aged children, 96 (b) younger adults with mobile phone addiction, 134 (c) healthy community-dwelling older adults, 119 , 125 , 133 (d) older adults with self-reported cognitive complaints 118 and type 2 diabetes mellitus, 121 (e) older adults with objective cognitive impairments, 119 (f) healthy older adults, 113 , 120 or (g) a population with a broad age range from 18 to 60 years 112 ( Table 1 ).…”

The unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost: no evidence for the passive dissipation of an oculomotor task-set inertia

“…In the other two conditions, the length of the preparation interval was increased to between 3000–4000 ms (i.e., medium preparation interval) and 5000–6000 ms (i.e., long preparation interval), respectively. The short preparation interval entails the same protocol as previous work by our group (Weiler and Heath 2012a , b ; Weiler and Heath 2014a , b ; Weiler et al 2015 ; see also Tari et al 2019 ; Tari and Heath 2019 ; Shukla et al 2020 ; Shukla and Heath 2021 ), whereas the medium preparation interval reflects that used in a previous parity and consonant/vowel switching task (Meiran et al 2000 ). In turn, the long preparation interval was used based on neuroimaging work demonstrating that the neural activity of an antisaccade persists for up to 6000 ms (Duschek et al 2018 ).…”