Exercise has beneficial effects on the body and brain. People who perform well on tests of cardiovascular fitness also do well on tests of learning, memory and other cognitive skills. So far, studies have suggested that moderate intensity aerobic exercise that lasts for 30 to 40 minutes produces the greatest improvements in these brain abilities.

Recently, short high-intensity workouts that combine cardiovascular exercise and strength training have become popular. Studies have shown that these brief bouts of strenuous exercise improve physical health, but do these benefits extend to the brain? It would also be helpful to know if the effect that exercise has on the brain depends on an individual’s genetic makeup or physical health. This might help to match people to the type of exercise that will work best for them.

Now, Moreau et al. show that just 10 minutes of high-intensity exercise a day over six weeks can boost the cognitive abilities of children. In the experiments, over 300 children between 7 and 13 years of age were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one that performed the high-intensity exercises, or a ‘control’ group that took part in less active activities – such as quizzes and playing computer games – over the same time period. The children who took part in the high-intensity training showed greater improvements in cognitive skills than the children in the control group. Specifically, the high-intensity exercise boosted working memory and left the children better able to focus on specific tasks, two skills that are important for academic success.

Moreau et al. further found that the high-intensity exercises had the most benefit for the children who needed it most – those with poor cardiovascular health and those with gene variants that are linked to poorer cognitive skills. This suggests that genetic differences do alter the effects of exercise on the brain, but also shows that targeted exercise programs can offer everyone a chance to thrive.

Moreau et al. suggest that exercise need not be time consuming to boost brain health; the key is to pack more intense exercise in shorter time periods. Further work could build on these findings to produce effective exercise routines that could ultimately form part of school curriculums, as well as proving useful to anyone who wishes to improve their cognitive skills.

Possibly the most reliable means to induce cognitive improvements behaviorally, physical exercise has become known for its effects on the brain in addition to its well-documented impact on the body (see for a review Moreau and Conway, 2013). Individuals with higher cardiovascular fitness typically show higher performance on a wide range of cognitive measures, from cognitive control (Pontifex et al., 2011) to working memory (Erickson et al., 2013) and executive functioning (Colcombe and Kramer, 2003; Hillman et al., 2008). In addition, long-term sport practice is associated with higher working memory capacity (Moreau, 2013), spatial ability (Moreau, 2012), and more efficient visual processing of movements (Güldenpenning et al., 2011). In neuroimaging studies, greater fitness indices have also been linked to differences in white matter integrity (Chaddock-Heyman et al., 2014; Voss et al., 2013), as well as with larger hippocampal (Weinstein et al., 2012) and cortical areas (Erickson et al., 2009; Makizako et al., 2015). These results are corroborated by increased long-term potentiation (LTP) in the visual system of physically fit individuals compared to the non-fit (Smallwood et al., 2015), a key finding given the primary role of LTP in major cognitive processes such as learning and memory (Bliss and Collingridge, 1993, 1973).

Importantly, these correlational findings are further supported by longitudinal designs. Exercise interventions can elicit cognitive improvements in diverse populations ranging from children (Davis et al., 2011) to the elderly (Fabre et al., 2002), as well as in individuals with various clinical conditions such as developmental coordination disorders (Tsai et al., 2012) and schizophrenia (Pajonk et al., 2010). Furthermore, improvements appear to be dose-dependent (Davis et al., 2007; Vidoni et al., 2015), and are not restricted to atypical or clinical populations—adults at their cognitive peak show similar benefits (Gomez-Pinilla and Hillman, 2013; Moreau and Conway, 2013; Voss et al., 2011).

In school settings, exercise interventions have shown to be associated with higher levels of academic achievement (Coe et al., 2006), and exercise regimens in children typically lead to improvements in various aspects of cognition, including executive function, cognitive control and memory (see for a review Tomporowski et al., 2015a). Interventions implemented in early stages of life allow capitalizing on higher cortical plasticity, potentially maximizing their impact (Cotman and Berchtold, 2002). The appeal of early interventions has motivated a whole line of research exploring the effect of physical exercise regimens on behavior, cognitive function, and scholastic performance (Castelli et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2007, Davis et al., 2011; Donnelly et al., 2016; Jackson et al., 2016; Pontifex et al., 2013). Consistent with these findings, Sibley et al. found a robust effect of physical exercise on cognitive function in children, in a meta-analytic assessment of the literature at the time (Sibley and Etnier, 2003).

Most studies in this line of research have evaluated the impact of a rather specific type of regimen, based on aerobic exercise. Usually defined as a sustained regimen performed at moderate intensity (e.g., McArdle et al., 2006), aerobic exercise has come to be accepted as the form of exercise typically associated with neural changes and cognitive enhancement (Hillman et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2012), for at least two reasons. First, current interventions are rooted in early findings in the animal literature, which typically investigated the effects of physical exercise in rodents—animals who naturally favor aerobic forms of exercise (Gould et al., 1999; Shors et al., 2001). Second, the most dramatic gains in cognition have been observed in the elderly (Erickson et al., 2015; but see also Etnier et al., 2006; Young et al., 2015, for a more nuanced view), a population for which moderate-intensity exercise is seemingly most adequate. Subsequent studies have stemmed from this line of research, therefore expanding the initial paradigm to a wider range of populations.

Yet current trends of research suggest other promising directions. For example, regimens based on resistance training have shown sizeable effects on cognition (Best et al., 2015; Liu-Ambrose et al., 2012; van Uffelen et al., 2007), despite underlying mechanisms of improvements being potentially different from those elicited by aerobic exercise (Goekint et al., 2010). More complex forms of motor training that combine high physical and cognitive demands also appear encouraging (Moreau et al., 2015; Tomporowski et al., 2015b). Moreover, a compelling body of research in the field of exercise physiology indicates that interventions based on short, intense bursts of exercise can induce physiological changes that mirror those following aerobic exercise on a wide variety of outcomes. These include measures of cardiovascular function (Chrysohoou et al., 2015; Gayda et al., 2016), overall fitness (Benda et al., 2015), and general health (Milanović et al., 2015). In some cases, physiological improvements following high-intensity training (HIT) can even go beyond those typically following aerobic regimens (Rognmo et al., 2004). For example, HIT appears to be particularly effective to increase the release of neurotrophic factors essential to neuronal transmission, modulation and plasticity—potentially surpassing aerobic exercise regimens (Ferris et al., 2007). This body of research is promising, as it suggests a plausible mechanism by which intense bursts of exercise could meaningfully influence cognitive function and behavior.

A few studies have partially tested this idea. Short bouts of exercise have been shown to alleviate some of the difficulties typically associated with Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children (Piepmeier et al., 2015), demonstrating the potential of this type of intervention to enhance cognitive abilities. The benefits reported in this study were not limited to children diagnosed with ADHD, however—typical children also exhibited cognitive improvements. More strikingly perhaps, Pontifex and colleagues found that a single 20 min bout of exercise was sufficient to improve cognitive function and scholastic performance in children (Pontifex et al., 2013). This is an impressive finding, given that exercise-induced cognitive improvements typically occur after longer training periods (Etnier et al., 2006; Sibley and Etnier, 2003). Importantly, these effects should be distinguished from short-term improvements immediately following acute bouts of exercise (Tomporowski, 2003), which typically dissipate after a few hours. The two types of outcomes (short-term consequences of single acute sessions vs. more durable benefits) are sometimes conflated, resulting in misleading conclusions (Jackson et al., 2016). The hypothesized mechanisms are, however, different—heightened state of alertness induced by neurotransmitter increases for the former (Tomporowski, 2003), and slower but more durable neurophysiological adaptations in the case of the latter (Erickson et al., 2011, Erickson et al., 2015; Moreau and Conway, 2013; Voss et al., 2013).

One aspect that remains to be formerly investigated relates to the specific influence of exercise intensity. Although focused on short sessions, the aforementioned studies utilized regimens of moderate intensity—a reported 62–72% (Piepmeier et al., 2015) and 65–75% (Pontifex et al., 2013) of individual maximum heart rate, respectively. Yet based on findings from the physiological literature (e.g., Rognmo et al., 2004), there are clear mechanisms via which exercising at a high intensity could influence cognition in a meaningful manner. Arguably, HIT could elicit improvements above and beyond those typically following short sessions of moderate intensity, and provide a legitimate, time-efficient alternative to longer aerobic exercise regimens (Costigan et al., 2015). Together, the conjunction of promising early findings and clear mechanisms of action has prompted discussions to implement HIT interventions more systematically within the community (Gray et al., 2016).

In an effort to better understand and predict individual responses to physical exercise interventions, several studies have investigated the role of specific genetic polymorphisms on the magnitude of exercise-induced improvements (Erickson et al., 2008, Erickson et al., 2013). Among these, many have focused on the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) val⁶⁶met polymorphism, given its direct influence on serum BDNF concentration (Lang et al., 2009). BDNF is known to support neuronal growth and has been shown to facilitate learning, a process that in turn induces BDNF production (Berchtold et al., 2001; Cotman and Berchtold, 2002; Kesslak et al., 1998). This dynamic coupling makes BDNF an important underlying factor of exercise-induced cognitive improvements. Consistent with this idea, it has been proposed that individuals whose particular BDNF polymorphism is associated with lower activity-dependent BDNF levels (met⁶⁶ carriers) might benefit from exercise interventions to a greater extent than individuals whose activity-dependent BDNF levels are higher (val⁶⁶ homozygotes).

Similarly, a few studies have shown that individuals with lower cardiovascular function might maximize benefits from physical exercise interventions designed to improve cognitive function (Sofi et al., 2011; Strong et al., 2005). The implicit assumption is that although lack of physical exercise might be a limiting factor for individuals whose fitness level is low, more active individuals might be less impacted by an exercise intervention program (Heyn et al., 2004; Lautenschlager et al., 2008; Sniehotta et al., 2006). Despite the intuitive appeal of this assumption, several studies, including one from our group, have failed to find a positive correlation between exercise-induced cognitive improvements and the associated physiological changes (Moreau et al., 2015; Tsai et al., 2014). Arguably, the absence of a clear link between the hypothesized physiological mechanisms of improvements and tangible cognitive gains might stem from the plurality and complexity of variables underlying these changes, rendering coherent associations elusive.

Despite similarities in the physiological mechanisms linking aerobic exercise and HIT on cognition, the precise impact of the latter on cognitive performance remains to be confirmed experimentally. In the present study, we tested the viability of HIT as a substitute for aerobic exercise to induce cognitive improvements in school populations. In particular, we postulated that HIT would result in improvements in measures of cognitive control and working memory, as both constructs have been linked to fitness levels (Pontifex et al., 2011) and appear to be malleable via aerobic regimens (Erickson et al., 2013). The choice of these constructs was also motivated by previous research showing the malleability of both cognitive control and working memory in training studies, thus providing theoretical and empirical support for the plausibility of expected improvements (Hampshire et al., 2012; Mishra et al., 2014). Consistent with recent efforts to better model and understand the mechanisms of cognitive improvement (Young et al., 2015; Moreau and Waldie, 2015), the present study also intended to address interindividual variability so as to isolate the underlying factors of improvement. Based on previous literature (Erickson et al., 2013; Moreau et al., 2015), we hypothesized that exercise training would elicit substantially larger cognitive benefits in individuals whose cardiovascular fitness is low, and in BDNF met⁶⁶ carriers, whose activity-dependent BDNF levels are naturally limited. Finally, we expected physiological improvements with exercise, as typically induced from aerobic interventions (see for a review Gomez-Pinilla and Hillman, 2013).

Statistical analyses were performed in R (RRID:SCR_001905; Core Team R, 2016). The following R packages were used for our analyses (in alphabetical order): BayesFactor (Morey and Rouder, 2015), car (Fox and Weisberg, 2011), dplyr (Wickham, 2011), ggplot2 (Wickham, 2009), gridExtra (Auguie, 2012), lsr (Navarro, 2015), psych (Revelle, 2015), pwr (Champely, 2015), rjags (Plummer, 2016). All packages were retrieved from CRAN (RRID:SCR_003005; https://cran.r-project.org/). Figures 4–6 were generated in JASP (JASP Team, 2016). R code and data are freely available on GitHub (https://github.com/davidmoreau/2017_eLife; a copy is archived at https://github.com/elifesciences-publications/2017_eLife-1). The repository includes data sets, R scripts, details and script of the HIT workout, the CONSORT flow diagram and the CONSORT checklist.

In this section, we report Bayesian model comparisons, to allow quantifying the degree of evidence for a given model compared to other models tested, as well as Bayesian parameter estimations when relevant. All the equivalent frequentist analyses can be found at the end of the Results section.

Normality of distribution was examined for all continuous variables. If distributions were skewed, we compared results using non-corrected vs. log-transformed data, and looked for discrepancies. Although the analyses we present below are fairly robust to outliers, as priors can be adapted to reflect deviations from normality, we systematically checked consistency using standard approaches to outlier exclusion, to facilitate direct comparisons with frequentist tests. We defined outliers as values more than 3/2 times the upper quartile or less than 3/2 times the lower quartile of a given distribution, and systematically checked consistency of our results with and without inclusion.

Physiological improvements

Participants in the exercise group saw a greater decrease in resting heart rate than controls, as demonstrated by a Bayesian ANCOVA with Condition (HIT vs. Control) as a fixed factor and baseline heart rate as a covariate. The full model was preferred to the model with baseline resting heart rate only: BF_M = 40.45, and was the most likely given our data: P(M | Data)=0.93, assessed from equal prior probabilities (Figure 1A). In-depth analyses focused on individuals with elevated resting heart rate at baseline allowed further insights into the potency of our exercise intervention. Specifically, a Bayesian t-test on resting heart rate change showed a sizeable difference between the two groups, with larger gains for the HIT group (BF₁₀ = 3.47, with M_gain = 6.11, SD_gain = 11.64 and M_gain = 1.89, SD_gain = 8.63, for HIT and Control, respectively; Hedges’ g = 0.41 (0.09, 0.73). Test-retest reliability—assessed via a comparison between pretest and posttest resting heart rate for controls only—was acceptable (r = 0.77, BF₁₀ = 1.75 e+51).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Physiological data also provided important indications about workout intensity idiosyncrasies. We used resting heart rate at pretest to determine target intensities for each individual, such that:

(1) ${\displaystyle \mathrm{H}{\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}=\mathrm{H}{\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}+\delta (\mathrm{H}{\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{M}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}}-\mathrm{H}{\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}})}$

where HR_Max = 220 Age, and δ is set to. 80. This yielded an individual target range (HR_Target or above) while exercising. We then compared this range with the maximum intensity measured during each workout, to obtain an index of accuracy, or agreement, between target zone and actual effort. Results showed that participants did exercise at a suitable intensity overall, as expressed by the deviation from individual target heart rate values (M_Dev = 1.65, SD_Dev = 5.87; Figure 1B). Importantly, effort intensity was maintained stable across time, as demonstrated by moderate evidence favoring the null model over an alternate model that included time as a predictor of maximum heart rate in a Bayesian linear regression analysis [BF_M = 2.87, P(M | Data)=0.74, Figure 1C]. Because individual resting heart rates tended to decrease throughout the intervention, sustained effort indicates that individuals incrementally increased workout volume, which was confirmed by additional measures such as step count [BF_M = 2.979e + 10, P(M | Data) ≈ 1, for the model that included Session as a covariate, Figure 1D]. Together, these results support the notion that the intervention was adaptive, allowing workout intensities tailored to each individual.

Physiological improvements are informative in two key aspects: they provide corroborating evidence for the hypothesized changes associated with exercise, and they allow identifying idiosyncratic parameters often characteristic of training interventions. However, the main goal of a cognitive intervention is to elicit cognitive gains, which were the primary outcomes of the present intervention. In the following sections, we first identify latent constructs from cognitive assessments, before discussing the impact of the intervention on these two constructs.

Cognitive improvements

Here, we report cognitive improvements broken down by constructs, defined based on the factors extracted from the exploratory factor analysis.

A Bayesian repeated measures ANOVA on Cognitive Control scores, with Session (pretest vs. posttest) as a within factor and Condition (HIT vs. Control) as a between factor, showed moderate evidence for the interaction model over the main effect model [BF_M = 3.38, p(M | Data)=0.46; Table 2]. Participants in the HIT group showed larger improvements than controls from pretest to posttest (M_gain = 0.25, SD_gain = 0.6 and M_gain = 0.08, SD_gain = 0.47, respectively, Hedges’ g = 0.31 [0.09, 0.54]; Figure 2A, see also Figures 4–6). A Bayesian repeated measures ANOVA on Working Memory scores, with Session (pretest vs. posttest) as a within factor and Condition (HIT vs. Control) as a between factor showed strong evidence for the interaction model over the main effect model [BF_M = 5233.68, p(M | Data) ≈1; Table 3]. Participants in the HIT group showed larger improvements than controls from pretest to posttest (M_gain = 0.48, SD_gain = 0.83 and M_gain = 0.12, SD_gain = 0.44, respectively, Hedges’ g = 0.54 [0.31, 0.77]; Figure 2B).

Table 2

Models	P(M | Data)	BFM	BF10	Error (%)
Null	1.01e −5	4.05e −5	1	-
Session	0.43	3.06	43120.06	0.98
Condition	2.32e −6	9.28e −6	0.23	3.93
Main effects	0.11	0.49	11143.87	4.52
Interaction	0.46	3.38	43792.87	5.52

Table 3

Models	P(M | Data)	BFM	BF10	Error (%)
Null	2.92e −13	1.17e −12	1	-
Session	4.49e −4	0	1.54e + 9	1.23
Condition	1.84e −13	17349e −13	0.63	0.69
Main effects	3.15e −4	0	1.08e + 9	3.13
Interaction	1	5232.68	3.42e + 12	2.91

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Because the cognitive improvements we reported are presumably based on physiological changes, we directly tested the relationship between the two types of variables. A Bayesian regression analysis showed that change in resting heart rate was a reliable predictor of cognitive gains in the HIT group, with respect to Cognitive Control (BF₁₀ = 6.34, p(M | Data)=0.86). This was not the case in the Control group (BF₁₀ = 0.20, p(M | Data)=0.16). The contrast was weaker when comparing Working Memory gains in the HIT group (BF₁₀ = 0.56, p(M | Data)=0.36) with those of the Control group (BF₁₀ = 0.18, p(M | Data)=0.15). Additional Bayesian regression analyses showed that lower resting heart rate at pretest did not predict improvements in either Cognitive Control or Working Memory in the HIT group (BF₁₀ = 0.41, p(M | Data)=0.29. and BF₁₀ = 0.18, p(M | Data)=0.15, respectively). This was also the case when the analyses were restricted to the. 75 quantile of individuals with the lowest resting heart rate at baseline (BF₁₀ = 0.34, p(M | Data)=0.25. and BF₁₀ = 0.62, p(M | Data)=0.38, respectively). Overall, baseline resting heart rate was a fairly noisy measure (M = 85.2, SD = 14.77, over the entire sample) and this might have contributed to the lack of clear impact of resting heart rate change on cognitive function.

Effect of BDNF genotype

A subsample of our data allowed for a better understanding of individual differences in exercise-induced cognitive improvements. Specifically, we looked at the effect of variations in the BDNF polymorphism on cognitive gains in the HIT group, via a comparison between met⁶⁶ carriers (i.e. met⁶⁶/ met⁶⁶ or val⁶⁶/ met⁶⁶) and non-carriers (val⁶⁶ homozygotes). Separate Bayesian repeated measures ANOVAs on Cognitive Control and Working Memory scores, with Session (pretest vs. posttest) as a within factor and BDNF polymorphism (val⁶⁶ homozygotes vs. met⁶⁶ carriers) as a between factor showed strong evidence for the interaction model in both cases [BF_M = 31.17, p(M | Data)=0.89, and BF_M = 675.92, p(M | Data)=0.99, for Cognitive Control and Working Memory, respectively, see Table 4 and Table 5]. These findings suggest that met⁶⁶ carriers benefited to a greater extent than non-carriers from the exercise intervention (Cognitive Control: M_gain = 0.93, SD_gain = 1.20 and M_gain = 0.05, SD_gain = 0.13, Hedges’ g = 1.36 [0.52, 2.2]; Working Memory, M_gain = 0.87, SD_gain = 0.64 and M_gain = 0.14, SD_gain = 0.24, Hedges’ g = 1.83 [0.94, 2.72]; Figure 3). Unequal baseline scores cannot fully account for this effect since evidence for differences in Cognitive Control was limited at pretest (BF₁₀ = 4.03, Error (%)=1.55 e −6 from a Bayesian independent samples t-test) and more substantial, but unable to account for the full effect, for Working Memory (BF₁₀ = 17.47, Error (%)=1.22 e −6 from a Bayesian independent samples t-test). Together, these findings indicate that although genetic variations in the BDNF polymorphism are associated with cognitive differences, the latter are malleable and can be reduced with physical exercise.

Table 4

Models	P(M | Data)	BFM	BF10	Error (%)
Null	0.01	0.06	1	-
Session	0.03	0.12	1.94	1.45
Condition	0.02	0.10	1.65	2.60
Main effects	0.04	0.19	3.05	1.71
Interaction	0.89	31.17	59.49	24.61

Table 5

Models	P(M | Data)	BFM	BF10	Error (%)
Null	2.47e −5	9.90e −5	1	-
Session	0	0.01	79.86	0.77
Condition	3.52e −5	1.41e −4	1.42	0.69
Main effects	0	0.01	155.37	5.84
Interaction	0.99	675.92	40159.39	3.51

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Priors and robustness

All priors used in the reported analyses are default prior scales (Morey and Rouder, 2015). For Bayesian repeated measures ANOVA and ANCOVA, the prior scale on fixed effects is set to 0.5, the prior scale on random effects to 1, and the prior scale on the covariate to 0.354. The latter is also used in Bayesian Linear Regression. The Bayesian t-test uses a Cauchy prior with a width of √2/2 (~0.707), that is half of parameter values lies within the interquartile range [−0.707; 0.707].

It is worth pointing out that the Bayesian repeated measures ANOVA that showed only moderate evidence for the effect of our HIT intervention on Cognitive Control shows stronger evidence with a slight variation on the prior scale. Although this variation in priors is consistent with our data and provides stronger evidence for our claim, we chose to report analyses with default prior scales, as these were the intended parameters a priori. For transparency, we plotted below the prior and posterior distribution for the comparison between Conditions (HIT vs. Control) for Cognitive Control (Figure 4), as well as the Bayes Factor robustness check (Figure 5). Both indicate that our findings are robust and supported by a wide range of priors, as corroborated by a sequential analysis (Figure 6).

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

The present study reported the first experimental evidence that HIT can elicit robust cognitive improvements in children. We confirmed the main hypothesis that exercise could induce gains in both cognitive control and working memory, as assessed from multiple measures. This finding is particularly promising given that the two constructs are reliable predictors of success in many domains, including professional and academic (Deary et al., 2007); in the classroom, cognitive control and working memory have been associated with effective learning and overall achievement (Rohde and Thompson, 2007). Importantly, these effects are also meaningful at the level of single tasks. Our main findings thus emphasize the potency of short but intense exercise interventions to enhance cognition, and suggests that aerobic exercise is not the sole means to elicit cognitive gains, in line with a growing body of research (Liu-Ambrose et al., 2012; Moreau et al., 2015; Pesce et al., 2016; Tomporowski et al., 2015b). HIT appears to be a viable and promising alternative to longer workouts to enhance cognition.

In addition to the main effect of training, we also postulated that specific genetic profiles would be correlated with different responses to training, with BDNF met⁶⁶ carriers (i.e. met/met or val/met) benefiting from exercise to a greater extent. This hypothesis, confirmed by the present findings, was based on previous literature showing a relationship between BDNF polymorphism and serum BDNF (Lang et al., 2009), and the influence of exercise interventions on the latter (Leckie et al., 2014). BDNF met⁶⁶ carriers showed greater gains from pretest to posttest on both cognitive constructs. As the substitution from valine to methionine at codon 66 typically results in decreases of activity-dependent secretion of BDNF at the synapse (Egan et al., 2003), BDNF met⁶⁶ carriers are thought to be particularly impacted by post-exercise BDNF increases (Nascimento et al., 2015). Conversely, val⁶⁶ homozygotes might benefit less from BDNF increases given above-average baseline levels. This finding is interesting because of its predictive power−controlling for BDNF polymorphism can allow more accurate forecasting of individual training responses, and better estimates of effect size. Given the current trend toward more personalized interventions (Medalia and Richardson, 2005; Moreau and Waldie, 2015), factoring in genetic information has the potential to refine and improve regimens, for each individual.

Importantly, the main effect of exercise on cognitive function is unlikely to be explained by the placebo effect. Self-reported measures of enjoyment and motivation did not differ between groups, supporting the notion that both types of intervention were equally appealing to children, or at least not fundamentally different with respect to intrinsic motivating factors. In addition, we also controlled for mindset—the degree to which individuals believe their cognitive abilities can change over time (Dweck et al., 1995). Previous research suggests that individual mindsets may be of influence in cognitive growths: individuals with a more ‘malleable’ mindset are thought to be more likely to improve in cognitive and academic domains than individuals with a ‘fixed’ mindset (Paunesku et al., 2015). Although we did find a difference between conditions, it was to the advantage of children in the control group, who held a more malleable view about the dynamic properties of cognitive function than did the HIT group. This finding was reported as an additional analysis in the Results section, rather than in the main section, because the effect was not hypothesized a priori. In any case, and with warranted caution regarding post hoc interpretation, this effect would suggest that controls were more likely to improve over time, an assumption that was not corroborated by our main finding. If anything, this strengthens our main claim—greater improvements in the HIT condition are inconsistent with a differential placebo effect, a critical point in light of recent findings in the field of cognitive training (Foroughi et al., 2016).

Effort-dependent variables provided additional insight about the mechanism underlying improvements. Consistent with previous interventional studies that have investigated the influence of exercise on cognition, we actively monitored several variables throughout the intervention. We could thus ensure that training was adequate, performed at a suitable intensity, and could test directly the dynamic coupling of these variables and their effects on cognitive outcomes. Indeed, we found that almost all participants stayed within the overall targeted range of effort required by the design of the workout and by initial individual measurements. This indicates a high degree of agreement, or fidelity, to the intended protocol—an essential component of the intervention given the underlying assumption that participants would exercise at a high intensity. Performed at a more moderate intensity, the same regimen becomes an aerobic training program, for which substantially longer time commitment might be required to elicit improvements. In addition, it is important to note that participants incrementally increased workout load, thus maintaining appropriate intensity throughout the intervention. Arguably, this adaptive property emerged from the design of the intervention, whereby participants were encouraged to exercise at maximum intensity at the time of the workout—an intrinsically individual and dynamic variable by definition.

In the present study, the effect of exercise could also be appreciated on changes in resting heart rate from pretest to posttest, a finding that confirms previous research in the field (e.g., Moreau et al., 2015). More specifically, exercise appears to be a valuable regulating mechanism, with elevated resting heart rate values likely to normalize as a result of HIT. This effect could not be attributed to regression toward the mean, as it was not found in controls, thus suggesting that the intervention is especially beneficial to individuals who need it most. Together with the finding that HIT benefited more individuals with a genetic polymorphism (BDNF met⁶⁶ carriers) that was associated with lower cognitive performance, this idea emphasizes the relevance of exercise interventions to individuals with specific genetic or physiological attributes to reduce interindividual differences (Gómez-Pinilla et al., 2001; Leckie et al., 2014). Disparities are genuine, yet targeted interventions allow low-performing individuals to improve dramatically.

Our design allowed delving deeper into the relationship between exercise and cognitive improvements. In particular, we found that change in resting heart rate was predictive of cognitive control, but not working memory, gains. This finding is of interest because we postulated that the mechanisms of improvement were physiological, given that HIT has been shown to elicit neurophysiological changes similar to those following aerobic exercise regimens (Ferris et al., 2007). However, we should point out that baseline resting heart rate did not predict gains in cognitive control or working memory in the HIT group, emphasizing the inherent noise associated with the relationship between physiological and cognitive measures. This lack of clear association between both types of variables is fairly common in the literature, suggesting that the hypothesized mechanisms of improvements are difficult to elucidate (Moreau et al., 2015; Tsai et al., 2014). Potentially, this also suggests that other variables may be of importance, a question we attempted to address with additional measurements, in an exploratory manner (see Additional Analyses in the Results section).

Regardless of the strength of the evidence reported in the present study, one might question the genuine impact of such a short training regimen. Although perhaps counterintuitive, the extreme potency of short, intense bursts of exercise has come to light in recent years (Lucas et al., 2015; Rognmo et al., 2004). In a review of the impact of HIT on public health, Biddle and Batterham, 2015 go as far as to premise their entire argument on the idea that the cardio-metabolic health outcomes are not to be questioned—rather, their only concern was about whether or not such regimens can be widely implemented and sustained over time (Biddle and Batterham, 2015). In a similar vein, Costigan and colleagues concluded that HIT is a time-efficient approach for improving cardiorespiratory fitness in adolescent populations (Costigan et al., 2015). These are strong, unequivocal statements, which reflect current views in exercise physiology—HIT has tremendous health benefits, with little, if any, disadvantages.

More direct evidence for the impact of HIT on brain function comes from neurophysiological studies. In an experiment that directly assessed the impact of short bursts of exercise on BDNF levels, Ferris et al. found that exercise leads to BDNF increases, and that the magnitude of the increase is intensity-dependent (Ferris et al., 2007). This result emphasizes the importance of controlling exercise intensity in HIT studies, given that the main determinant of improvement appears to be the intensity of the workout. Indeed, previous studies have looked at the effect of short, but not intense, bursts of exercise on cognition, and found no clear evidence of improvement (Craft, 1983). The high-intensity component of this type of exercise regimen is intended to allow for higher workout intensity than traditional workouts, despite shorter overall volume. The brevity of exercise, on the other hand, is simply a byproduct of intensity—one cannot maintain a near-maximal exercise intensity for long periods of time, given that this type of regimen depletes energetic resources rapidly (Parolin et al., 1999). In terms of practical implications, this aspect is critical, as it allows designing shorter, more potent workouts.

Despite our findings being in line with previous literature showing that short bursts of exercise can elicit potent cognitive improvements in children (Piepmeier et al., 2015; Pontifex et al., 2013), and, more generally, with a wider, more general literature linking physical exercise and cognition in children (Jackson et al., 2016; Sibley and Etnier, 2003), we should also point out a few limitations of the present study. These open up interesting avenues and directions for future research. First, the duration of training was not experimentally manipulated, and therefore the specific question of dose-dependence was not directly assessed. Therefore, we cannot claim that a 6 week regimen is optimal—larger cognitive improvements could possibly be elicited with longer durations, or, alternatively, similar improvements could be induced with a shorter intervention. Similarly, no follow-up tests were performed to assess durability of improvements post-training; although it should be noted that maintaining benefits is arguably less important with short, potent interventions such as the HIT regimen we proposed. In addition, both the duration of the intervention and the specific experimental protocol were constrained by external factors (e.g. feasibility, academic schedule). With respect to the potency of the intervention, however, this is also promising—as little as six weeks of training can induce noticeable improvements, with possible larger effects if physical exercise is sustained.

Related to this idea, we had to work around constraints typically imposed by interventional studies; namely, the necessity to keep testing sessions time-efficient. Beyond logistic considerations, this was also intended to minimize the influence of cognitive fatigue on our results. Despite time constraints, we aimed to preserve testing diversity (i.e., number of tasks per construct) for a few reasons. First, we strived to provide estimates of constructs that minimize task-specific components and extract meaningful domain-general scores. In psychometric testing of working memory capacity, Foster and colleagues demonstrated that the majority of the variance explained by a single WM task is accounted for in the first few blocks, and that the predictive nature of the task remains largely unchanged for practical purposes when tasks are shortened (Foster et al., 2015). Second, simulation studies have shown that incorporating more tasks within constructs leads to a better signal-to-noise ratio, resulting in more meaningful measures of an underlying ability (Moreau et al., 2016). To further validate this approach, we piloted different versions of our testing tasks and determined that the validity of the versions we retained for the present study was acceptable, given appropriate reliability across task lengths.

Second, because training occurred in schools, the environment was possibly less standardized and controlled than laboratory settings, highlighting typical tradeoffs between impoverished but highly reliable environments and ecological but less controlled settings. Our view remains that ecological validity is of primary importance when training cognitive abilities, because of the wide range of applications stemming from this line of research (Moreau and Conway, 2014). Accordingly, fixed, predictable training regimens are unlikely to favor durable improvements of cognitive function (Moreau and Conway, 2014; Moreau et al., 2015; Posner et al., 2015). We have previously stressed the importance of novelty and variety in cognitive training interventions (Moreau and Conway, 2014), and this limitation applies to exercise regimens as well. Importantly, this echoes similar views across research groups worldwide, which suggest that training-induced cognitive improvements are often restricted to specific activities (Harrison et al., 2013; Tomporowski et al., 2012), and are best nurtured within complex, dynamic environments (Diamond and Lee, 2011). Therefore, the regimen we have presented in this paper constitutes a potent short-term intervention, but more variety might be required to elicit long-lasting improvements. In a field that has suffered from setbacks such as lack of replication (e.g. Redick et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2013) or common methodological flaws (Moreau et al., 2016), it is wise to remain cautious about preliminary studies and emphasize the need for replication.

Despite these limitations, the present findings represent a promising first step toward reliable and affordable exercise-based cognitive interventions, highlighting effective alternatives to aerobic exercise. Together with complementary findings (e.g. Moreau et al., 2015), the type of physical exercise regimen we described in this paper could pave the way for novel exercise interventions particularly suited to school environments, which are often constrained by time and equipment. The high-intensity workout we designed did not require any special equipment or any instructors training, and each 10 min session was all-inclusive with warm-up and stretching. Therefore, this type of regimen could also be generalized to other populations; for instance, individuals whose schedule allows little time for exercise, or those who do not intrinsically enjoy exercising, could appreciate opportunities to shorten workouts while preserving the typical benefits of exercise. Adaptations to older populations also represent interesting opportunities considering the benefits typically associated with exercise regimens in these communities (Colcombe and Kramer, 2003). The present regimen might require adjustments, given that practicality in a specific context (e.g. managing time constraints in school or professional schedules) potentially differs from practical considerations in another (e.g. mitigating risks of injury in older populations). In any case, generalization is of the rationale, not necessarily of the specific workout that was designed for this intervention.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that physical exercise, regardless of the specific training regimens considered, is not a panacea when it comes to addressing cognitive deficits−in some cases, especially in the presence of specific conditions or disorders, more targeted or individualized interventions might be required (e.g., Moreau and Waldie, 2015), and the ability for exercise regimens to remediate core cognitive deficits might appear inherently limited. However, it remains that physical exercise is one of the most potent and wide-ranging means currently available to enhance cognition non-invasively, with a myriad of positive side effects.

We report here a multicenter, randomized (1:1 allocation), placebo-controlled trial. Design and reporting are consistent with CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/). Participants, parents and school principals gave their informed consent for inclusion in this study, and the Ethics Committee at the University of Auckland approved all procedures. The full protocol and statistical analysis plan are available online at https://github.com/davidmoreau/2017_eLife.

1. 1. Anderson-Hanley C
   2. Arciero PJ
   3. Brickman AM
   4. Nimon JP
   5. Okuma N
   6. Westen SC
   7. Merz ME
   8. Pence BD
   9. Woods JA
   10. Kramer AF
   11. Zimmerman EA

   (2012) Exergaming and older adult cognition: a cluster randomized clinical trial

   American Journal of Preventive Medicine 42:109–119.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.10.016

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Aron AR
   2. Poldrack RA

   (2005) The cognitive neuroscience of response inhibition: relevance for genetic research in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

   Biological Psychiatry 57:1285–1292.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.10.026

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Auguie B

   (2012)

   gridExtra: Functions in Grid Graphics

   gridExtra: Functions in Grid Graphics, R package version 0.9.1.

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Benda NM
   2. Seeger JP
   3. Stevens GG
   4. Hijmans-Kersten BT
   5. van Dijk AP
   6. Bellersen L
   7. Lamfers EJ
   8. Hopman MT
   9. Thijssen DH

   (2015) Effects of High-Intensity Interval training versus continuous training on physical fitness, cardiovascular function and quality of life in heart failure patients

   PLoS One 10:e0141256.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141256

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Berchtold NC
   2. Kesslak JP
   3. Pike CJ
   4. Adlard PA
   5. Cotman CW

   (2001) Estrogen and exercise interact to regulate brain-derived neurotrophic factor mRNA and protein expression in the Hippocampus

   European Journal of Neuroscience 14:1992–2002.

   https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01825.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Best JR
   2. Chiu BK
   3. Liang Hsu C
   4. Nagamatsu LS
   5. Liu-Ambrose T

   (2015) Long-Term effects of resistance exercise training on cognition and brain volume in older women: results from a randomized controlled trial

   Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 21:745–756.

   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617715000673

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Biddle SJ
   2. Batterham AM

   (2015) High-intensity interval exercise training for public health: a big HIT or shall we HIT it on the head?

   International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 12:95.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0254-9

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bliss TV
   2. Collingridge GL

   (1993) A synaptic model of memory: long-term potentiation in the hippocampus

   Nature 361:31–39.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/361031a0

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bliss TV
   2. Lomo T

   (1973) Long-lasting potentiation of synaptic transmission in the dentate area of the anaesthetized rabbit following stimulation of the perforant path

   The Journal of Physiology 232:331–356.

   https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1973.sp010273

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Boot WR
    2. Simons DJ
    3. Stothart C
    4. Stutts C

    (2013) The Pervasive Problem with placebos in psychology: why active control groups are not sufficient to rule out placebo effects

    Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 8:445–454.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613491271

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Brown W

    (1910) Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities

    British Journal of Psychology, 1904-1920 3:296–322.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1910.tb00207.x

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Castelli DM
    2. Hillman CH
    3. Buck SM
    4. Erwin HE

    (2007) Physical fitness and academic achievement in third- and fifth-grade students

    Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 29:239–252.

    https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.29.2.239

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Chaddock-Heyman L
    2. Erickson KI
    3. Holtrop JL
    4. Voss MW
    5. Pontifex MB
    6. Raine LB
    7. Hillman CH
    8. Kramer AF

    (2014) Aerobic fitness is associated with greater white matter integrity in children

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8:584.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00584

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Champely S

    (2015)

    Pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis

    Pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis, R package version 1.1-2.

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Chrysohoou C
    2. Angelis A
    3. Tsitsinakis G
    4. Spetsioti S
    5. Nasis I
    6. Tsiachris D
    7. Rapakoulias P
    8. Pitsavos C
    9. Koulouris NG
    10. Vogiatzis I
    11. Dimitris T

    (2015) Cardiovascular effects of high-intensity interval aerobic training combined with strength exercise in patients with chronic heart failure. A randomized phase III clinical trial

    International Journal of Cardiology 179:269–274.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.11.067

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Coe DP
    2. Pivarnik JM
    3. Womack CJ
    4. Reeves MJ
    5. Malina RM

    (2006) Effect of physical education and activity levels on academic achievement in children

    Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 38:1515–1519.

    https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000227537.13175.1b

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Colcombe S
    2. Kramer AF

    (2003) Fitness effects on the cognitive function of older adults: a meta-analytic study

    Psychological Science 14:125–130.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01430

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. Book

    1. Core Team R

    (2016)

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Costigan SA
    2. Eather N
    3. Plotnikoff RC
    4. Taaffe DR
    5. Lubans DR

    (2015) High-intensity interval training for improving health-related fitness in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    British Journal of Sports Medicine 49:1253–1261.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094490

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Cotman CW
    2. Berchtold NC

    (2002) Exercise: a behavioral intervention to enhance brain health and plasticity

    Trends in Neurosciences 25:295–301.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(02)02143-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Craft DH

    (1983) Effect of prior exercise on cognitive performance tasks by hyperactive and normal young boys

    Perceptual and Motor Skills 56:979–982.

    https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1983.56.3.979

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Davis CL
    2. Tomporowski PD
    3. Boyle CA
    4. Waller JL
    5. Miller PH
    6. Naglieri JA
    7. Gregoski M

    (2007) Effects of aerobic exercise on overweight children's cognitive functioning: a randomized controlled trial

    Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 78:510–519.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2007.10599450

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Davis CL
    2. Tomporowski PD
    3. McDowell JE
    4. Austin BP
    5. Miller PH
    6. Yanasak NE
    7. Allison JD
    8. Naglieri JA

    (2011) Exercise improves executive function and achievement and alters brain activation in overweight children: a randomized, controlled trial

    Health Psychology 30:91–98.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021766

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. de Zambotti M
    2. Baker FC
    3. Willoughby AR
    4. Godino JG
    5. Wing D
    6. Patrick K
    7. Colrain IM

    (2016) Measures of sleep and cardiac functioning during sleep using a multi-sensory commercially-available wristband in adolescents

    Physiology & Behavior 158:143–149.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.03.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Deary IJ
    2. Strand S
    3. Smith P
    4. Fernandes C

    (2007) Intelligence and educational achievement

    Intelligence 35:13–21.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.02.001

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Diamond A
    2. Lee K

    (2011) Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old

    Science 333:959–964.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Donnelly JE
    2. Hillman CH
    3. Castelli D
    4. Etnier JL
    5. Lee S
    6. Tomporowski P
    7. Lambourne K
    8. Szabo-Reed AN

    (2016) Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic achievement in children: a systematic review

    Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 48:1197–1222.

    https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000901

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Dweck CS
    2. Chiu C-yue
    3. Hong Y-yi

    (1995) Implicit theories and their role in Judgments and reactions: a word from two perspectives

    Psychological Inquiry 6:267–285.

    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Egan MF
    2. Kojima M
    3. Callicott JH
    4. Goldberg TE
    5. Kolachana BS
    6. Bertolino A
    7. Zaitsev E
    8. Gold B
    9. Goldman D
    10. Dean M
    11. Lu B
    12. Weinberger DR

    (2003) The BDNF val66met polymorphism affects activity-dependent secretion of BDNF and human memory and hippocampal function

    Cell 112:257–269.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(03)00035-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Erickson KI
    2. Banducci SE
    3. Weinstein AM
    4. Macdonald AW
    5. Ferrell RE
    6. Halder I
    7. Flory JD
    8. Manuck SB

    (2013) The brain-derived neurotrophic factor Val66Met polymorphism moderates an effect of physical activity on working memory performance

    Psychological Science 24:1770–1779.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480367

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Erickson KI
    2. Hillman CH
    3. Kramer AF

    (2015) Physical activity, brain, and cognition

    Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 4:27–32.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.01.005

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Erickson KI
    2. Kim JS
    3. Suever BL
    4. Voss MW
    5. Francis BM
    6. Kramer AF

    (2008) Genetic contributions to age-related decline in executive function: a 10-year longitudinal study of COMT and BDNF polymorphisms

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2:11.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.011.2008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Erickson KI
    2. Prakash RS
    3. Voss MW
    4. Chaddock L
    5. Hu L
    6. Morris KS
    7. White SM
    8. Wójcicki TR
    9. McAuley E
    10. Kramer AF

    (2009) Aerobic fitness is associated with hippocampal volume in elderly humans

    Hippocampus 19:1030–1039.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.20547

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Erickson KI
    2. Voss MW
    3. Prakash RS
    4. Basak C
    5. Szabo A
    6. Chaddock L
    7. Kim JS
    8. Heo S
    9. Alves H
    10. White SM
    11. Wojcicki TR
    12. Mailey E
    13. Vieira VJ
    14. Martin SA
    15. Pence BD
    16. Woods JA
    17. McAuley E
    18. Kramer AF

    (2011) Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory

    PNAS 108:3017–3022.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015950108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Etnier JL
    2. Nowell PM
    3. Landers DM
    4. Sibley BA

    (2006) A meta-regression to examine the relationship between aerobic fitness and cognitive performance

    Brain Research Reviews 52:119–130.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2006.01.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Fabre C
    2. Chamari K
    3. Mucci P
    4. Massé-Biron J
    5. Préfaut C

    (2002) Improvement of cognitive function by mental and/or individualized aerobic training in healthy elderly subjects

    International Journal of Sports Medicine 23:415–421.

    https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-33735

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Ferris LT
    2. Williams JS
    3. Shen CL

    (2007) The effect of acute exercise on serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels and cognitive function

    Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 39:728–734.

    https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e31802f04c7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Foroughi CK
    2. Monfort SS
    3. Paczynski M
    4. McKnight PE
    5. Greenwood PM

    (2016) Placebo effects in cognitive training

    PNAS 113:7470–7474.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601243113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Foster JL
    2. Shipstead Z
    3. Harrison TL
    4. Hicks KL
    5. Redick TS
    6. Engle RW

    (2015) Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity

    Memory & Cognition 43:226–236.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0461-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. Book

    1. Fox J
    2. Weisberg S

    (2011)

    An R Companion to Applied Regression

    California: Sage.

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Gayda M
    2. Ribeiro PA
    3. Juneau M
    4. Nigam A

    (2016) Comparison of different forms of exercise training in patients with cardiac disease: where does High-Intensity Interval Training Fit?

    Canadian Journal of Cardiology 32:485–494.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2016.01.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Goekint M
    2. De Pauw K
    3. Roelands B
    4. Njemini R
    5. Bautmans I
    6. Mets T
    7. Meeusen R

    (2010) Strength training does not influence serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor

    European Journal of Applied Physiology 110:285–293.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-010-1461-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Gomez-Pinilla F
    2. Hillman C

    (2013)

    Comprehensive Physiology

    403–428, The Influence of Exercise on Cognitive Abilities, Comprehensive Physiology, 3, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Gould E
    2. Beylin A
    3. Tanapat P
    4. Reeves A
    5. Shors TJ

    (1999) Learning enhances adult neurogenesis in the hippocampal formation

    Nature Neuroscience 2:260–265.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/6365

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Gómez-Pinilla F
    2. Ying Z
    3. Opazo P
    4. Roy RR
    5. Edgerton VR

    (2001) Differential regulation by exercise of BDNF and NT-3 in rat spinal cord and skeletal muscle

    European Journal of Neuroscience 13:1078–1084.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01484.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Gray SR
    2. Ferguson C
    3. Birch K
    4. Forrest LJ
    5. Gill JM

    (2016) High-intensity interval training: key data needed to bridge the gap from laboratory to public health policy

    British Journal of Sports Medicine 50:1231–1232.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095705

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Güldenpenning I
    2. Koester D
    3. Kunde W
    4. Weigelt M
    5. Schack T

    (2011) Motor expertise modulates the unconscious processing of human body postures

    Experimental Brain Research 213:383–391.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2788-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Hampshire A
    2. Highfield RR
    3. Parkin BL
    4. Owen AM

    (2012) Fractionating human intelligence

    Neuron 76:1225–1237.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.06.022

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Harrison TL
    2. Shipstead Z
    3. Hicks KL
    4. Hambrick DZ
    5. Redick TS
    6. Engle RW

    (2013) Working memory training may increase working memory capacity but not fluid intelligence

    Psychological Science 24:2409–2419.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613492984

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Heyn P
    2. Abreu BC
    3. Ottenbacher KJ

    (2004) The effects of exercise training on elderly persons with cognitive impairment and dementia: a meta-analysis

    Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 85:1694–1704.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.03.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Hillman CH
    2. Erickson KI
    3. Kramer AF

    (2008) Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise effects on brain and cognition

    Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9:58–65.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2298

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Jackson WM
    2. Davis N
    3. Sands SA
    4. Whittington RA
    5. Sun LS

    (2016) Physical activity and cognitive development

    Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology 28:373–380.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/ANA.0000000000000349

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Kane MJ
    2. Hambrick DZ
    3. Tuholski SW
    4. Wilhelm O
    5. Payne TW
    6. Engle RW

    (2004) The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133:189–217.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Kesslak JP
    2. So V
    3. Choi J
    4. Cotman CW
    5. Gomez-Pinilla F

    (1998) Learning upregulates brain-derived neurotrophic factor messenger ribonucleic acid: a mechanism to facilitate encoding and circuit maintenance?

    Behavioral Neuroscience 112:1012–1019.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.112.4.1012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Lang UE
    2. Hellweg R
    3. Sander T
    4. Gallinat J

    (2009) The Met allele of the BDNF Val66Met polymorphism is associated with increased BDNF serum concentrations

    Molecular Psychiatry 14:120–122.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2008.80

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Lautenschlager NT
    2. Cox KL
    3. Flicker L
    4. Foster JK
    5. van Bockxmeer FM
    6. Xiao J
    7. Greenop KR
    8. Almeida OP

    (2008) Effect of physical activity on cognitive function in older adults at risk for alzheimer disease: a randomized trial

    JAMA 300:1027.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.9.1027

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Leckie RL
    2. Oberlin LE
    3. Voss MW
    4. Prakash RS
    5. Szabo-Reed A
    6. Chaddock-Heyman L
    7. Phillips SM
    8. Gothe NP
    9. Mailey E
    10. Vieira-Potter VJ
    11. Martin SA
    12. Pence BD
    13. Lin M
    14. Parasuraman R
    15. Greenwood PM
    16. Fryxell KJ
    17. Woods JA
    18. McAuley E
    19. Kramer AF
    20. Erickson KI

    (2014) BDNF mediates improvements in executive function following a 1-year exercise intervention

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8:985.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00985

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Liu-Ambrose T
    2. Nagamatsu LS
    3. Voss MW
    4. Khan KM
    5. Handy TC

    (2012) Resistance training and functional plasticity of the aging brain: a 12-month randomized controlled trial

    Neurobiology of Aging 33:1690–1698.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2011.05.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Lucas SJ
    2. Cotter JD
    3. Brassard P
    4. Bailey DM

    (2015) High-intensity interval exercise and cerebrovascular health: curiosity, cause, and consequence

    Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism 35:902–911.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.2015.49

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Makizako H
    2. Liu-Ambrose T
    3. Shimada H
    4. Doi T
    5. Park H
    6. Tsutsumimoto K
    7. Uemura K
    8. Suzuki T

    (2015) Moderate-intensity physical activity, hippocampal volume, and memory in older adults with mild cognitive impairment

    The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 70:480–486.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glu136

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. Book

    1. McArdle WD
    2. Katch F I
    3. Katch VL

    (2006)

    Essentials of Exercise Physiology

    Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Medalia A
    2. Richardson R

    (2005) What predicts a good response to cognitive remediation interventions?

    Schizophrenia Bulletin 31:942–953.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbi045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Milanović Z
    2. Sporiš G
    3. Weston M

    (2015) Effectiveness of high-intensity Interval training (HIT) and continuous endurance training for VO2max improvements: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials

    Sports Medicine 45:1469–1481.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0365-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Mishra J
    2. de Villers-Sidani E
    3. Merzenich M
    4. Gazzaley A

    (2014) Adaptive training diminishes distractibility in aging across species

    Neuron 84:1091–1103.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2014.10.034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Moreau D
    2. Conway AR

    (2014) The case for an ecological approach to cognitive training

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18:334–336.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Moreau D
    2. Conway ARA

    (2013) Cognitive enhancement: a comparative review of computerized and athletic training programs

    International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 6:155–183.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.758763

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Moreau D
    2. Kirk IJ
    3. Waldie KE

    (2016) Seven Pervasive Statistical flaws in cognitive training interventions

    Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 10:153.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00153

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Moreau D
    2. Morrison AB
    3. Conway AR

    (2015) An ecological approach to cognitive enhancement: complex motor training

    Acta Psychologica 157:44–55.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.02.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Moreau D
    2. Waldie KE

    (2015) Developmental Learning disorders: from generic interventions to individualized remediation

    Frontiers in Psychology 6:2053.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02053

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Moreau D

    (2012) The role of motor processes in three-dimensional mental rotation: shaping cognitive processing via sensorimotor experience

    Learning and Individual Differences 22:354–359.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.02.003

    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Moreau D

    (2013) Motor expertise modulates movement processing in working memory

    Acta Psychologica 142:356–361.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.01.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Morey RD
    2. Rouder JN

    (2015)

    BayesFactor: computation of Bayes factors for common designs

    BayesFactor: computation of Bayes factors for common designs, R package version 0.9.12-2.

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Nascimento CM
    2. Pereira JR
    3. Pires de Andrade L
    4. Garuffi M
    5. Ayan C
    6. Kerr DS
    7. Talib LL
    8. Cominetti MR
    9. Stella F

    (2015) Physical exercise improves peripheral BDNF levels and cognitive functions in mild cognitive impairment elderly with different bdnf val66Met genotypes

    Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 43:81–91.

    https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-140576

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. Book

    1. Navarro DJ

    (2015)

    Learning Statistics with R: A Tutorial for Psychology Students and Other Beginners

    Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide.

    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Nee DE
    2. Wager TD
    3. Jonides J

    (2007) Interference resolution: insights from a meta-analysis of neuroimaging tasks

    Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 7:1–17.

    https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.1.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Nishita DM
    2. Jack LM
    3. McElroy M
    4. McClure JB
    5. Richards J
    6. Swan GE
    7. Bergen AW

    (2009) Clinical trial participant characteristics and saliva and DNA metrics

    BMC Medical Research Methodology 9:71.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-71

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Pajonk FG
    2. Wobrock T
    3. Gruber O
    4. Scherk H
    5. Berner D
    6. Kaizl I
    7. Kierer A
    8. Müller S
    9. Oest M
    10. Meyer T
    11. Backens M
    12. Schneider-Axmann T
    13. Thornton AE
    14. Honer WG
    15. Falkai P

    (2010) Hippocampal plasticity in response to exercise in schizophrenia

    Archives of General Psychiatry 67:133–143.

    https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.193

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Parolin ML
    2. Chesley A
    3. Matsos MP
    4. Spriet LL
    5. Jones NL
    6. Heigenhauser GJ

    (1999)

    Regulation of skeletal muscle glycogen phosphorylase and PDH during maximal intermittent exercise

    The American Journal of Physiology 277:E890–900.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Paunesku D
    2. Walton GM
    3. Romero C
    4. Smith EN
    5. Yeager DS
    6. Dweck CS

    (2015) Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement

    Psychological Science 26:784–793.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Pesce C
    2. Masci I
    3. Marchetti R
    4. Vazou S
    5. Sääkslahti A
    6. Tomporowski PD

    (2016) Deliberate play and preparation jointly benefit motor and cognitive development: mediated and moderated effects

    Frontiers in Psychology 7:349.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00349

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Piepmeier AT
    2. Shih C-H
    3. Whedon M
    4. Williams LM
    5. Davis ME
    6. Henning DA
    7. Park S
    8. Calkins SD
    9. Etnier JL

    (2015) The effect of acute exercise on cognitive performance in children with and without ADHD

    Journal of Sport and Health Science 4:97–104.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.11.004

    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Plummer M

    (2016)

    Rjags: Bayesian Graphical Models Using MCMC

    Rjags: Bayesian Graphical Models Using MCMC.

    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Pontifex MB
    2. Raine LB
    3. Johnson CR
    4. Chaddock L
    5. Voss MW
    6. Cohen NJ
    7. Kramer AF
    8. Hillman CH

    (2011) Cardiorespiratory fitness and the flexible modulation of cognitive control in preadolescent children

    Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23:1332–1345.

    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21528

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Pontifex MB
    2. Saliba BJ
    3. Raine LB
    4. Picchietti DL
    5. Hillman CH

    (2013) Exercise improves behavioral, neurocognitive, and scholastic performance in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

    The Journal of Pediatrics 162:543–551.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.08.036

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Posner MI
    2. Rothbart MK
    3. Tang Y-Y

    (2015) Enhancing attention through training

    Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 4:1–5.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2014.12.008

    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Redick TS
    2. Shipstead Z
    3. Harrison TL
    4. Hicks KL
    5. Fried DE
    6. Hambrick DZ
    7. Kane MJ
    8. Engle RW

    (2013) No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: a randomized, placebo-controlled study

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142:359–379.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029082

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. Software

    1. Revelle W

    (2015)

    Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research

    Northwestern University.
88. 1. Rognmo Ø
    2. Hetland E
    3. Helgerud J
    4. Hoff J
    5. Slørdahl SA

    (2004) High intensity aerobic interval exercise is superior to moderate intensity exercise for increasing aerobic capacity in patients with coronary artery disease

    European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Prevention and Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology 11:216–222.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjr.0000131677.96762.0c

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Rohde TE
    2. Thompson LA

    (2007) Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability

    Intelligence 35:83–92.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.05.004

    • Google Scholar
90. Book

    1. Rubinstein RY
    2. Kroese DP

    (2011)

    Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method

    John Wiley & Sons.

    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Rudebeck SR
    2. Bor D
    3. Ormond A
    4. O'Reilly JX
    5. Lee AC

    (2012) A potential spatial working memory training task to improve both episodic memory and fluid intelligence

    PLoS One 7:e50431.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050431

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Shors TJ
    2. Miesegaes G
    3. Beylin A
    4. Zhao M
    5. Rydel T
    6. Gould E

    (2001) Neurogenesis in the adult is involved in the formation of trace memories

    Nature 410:372–376.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35066584

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Sibley BA
    2. Etnier JL

    (2003) The relationship between physical activity and cognition in Children: a Meta-Analysis

    Pediatric Exercise Science 15:243–256.

    https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.15.3.243

    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Smallwood N
    2. Spriggs MJ
    3. Thompson CS
    4. Wu CC
    5. Hamm JP
    6. Moreau D
    7. Kirk IJ

    (2015) Influence of physical activity on human sensory long-term potentiation

    Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 21:831–840.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617715001095

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Sniehotta FF
    2. Scholz U
    3. Schwarzer R

    (2006) Action plans and coping plans for physical exercise: A longitudinal intervention study in cardiac rehabilitation

    British Journal of Health Psychology 11:23–37.

    https://doi.org/10.1348/135910705X43804

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Sofi F
    2. Valecchi D
    3. Bacci D
    4. Abbate R
    5. Gensini GF
    6. Casini A
    7. Macchi C

    (2011) Physical activity and risk of cognitive decline: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

    Journal of Internal Medicine 269:107–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02281.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Spearman C

    (1910) Correlation calculated from faulty data

    British Journal of Psychology, 1904-1920 3:271–295.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1910.tb00206.x

    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Stothart CR
    2. Simons DJ
    3. Boot WR
    4. Kramer AF

    (2014) Is the effect of aerobic exercise on cognition a placebo effect?

    PLoS One 9:e109557.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109557

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Strong WB
    2. Malina RM
    3. Blimkie CJ
    4. Daniels SR
    5. Dishman RK
    6. Gutin B
    7. Hergenroeder AC
    8. Must A
    9. Nixon PA
    10. Pivarnik JM
    11. Rowland T
    12. Trost S
    13. Trudeau F

    (2005) Evidence based physical activity for school-age youth

    The Journal of Pediatrics 146:732–737.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.01.055

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. JASP Team

     (2016)

     JASP

     JASP, 0.8.0.0.

     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Thomas AG
     2. Dennis A
     3. Bandettini PA
     4. Johansen-Berg H

     (2012) The effects of aerobic activity on brain structure

     Frontiers in Psychology 3:86.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00086

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Thompson TW
     2. Waskom ML
     3. Garel KL
     4. Cardenas-Iniguez C
     5. Reynolds GO
     6. Winter R
     7. Chang P
     8. Pollard K
     9. Lala N
     10. Alvarez GA
     11. Gabrieli JD

     (2013) Failure of working memory training to enhance cognition or intelligence

     PLoS One 8:e63614.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063614

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Tomporowski PD
     2. McCullick B
     3. Pendleton DM
     4. Pesce C

     (2015a) Exercise and children's cognition: The role of exercise characteristics and a place for metacognition

     Journal of Sport and Health Science 4:47–55.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.09.003

     • Google Scholar
104. Book

     1. Tomporowski PD
     2. McCullick B
     3. Pesce C

     (2015b)

     Enhancing Children’s Cognition with Physical Activity Games

     Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

     • Google Scholar
105. Book

     1. Tomporowski PD
     2. Naglieri JA
     3. Lambourne K

     (2012)

     Exercise psychology and children’s intelligence

     In: Acevedo E. O, editors. Oxford Handbook of Exercise Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 409–429.

     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Tomporowski PD

     (2003) Effects of acute bouts of exercise on cognition

     Acta Psychologica 112:297–324.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00134-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Tsai CL
     2. Chen FC
     3. Pan CY
     4. Wang CH
     5. Huang TH
     6. Chen TC

     (2014) Impact of acute aerobic exercise and cardiorespiratory fitness on visuospatial attention performance and serum BDNF levels

     Psychoneuroendocrinology 41:121–131.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2013.12.014

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Tsai CL
     2. Wang CH
     3. Tseng YT

     (2012) Effects of exercise intervention on event-related potential and task performance indices of attention networks in children with developmental coordination disorder

     Brain and Cognition 79:12–22.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.02.004

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Unsworth N
     2. Engle RW

     (2007) On the division of short-term and working memory: an examination of simple and complex span and their relation to higher order abilities

     Psychological Bulletin 133:1038–1066.

     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.1038

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. van Uffelen JG
     2. Chin A Paw MJ
     3. Hopman-Rock M
     4. van Mechelen W

     (2007) The effect of walking and vitamin B supplementation on quality of life in community-dwelling adults with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized, controlled trial

     Quality of Life Research : An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation 16:1137–1146.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9219-z

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Vidoni ED
     2. Johnson DK
     3. Morris JK
     4. Van Sciver A
     5. Greer CS
     6. Billinger SA
     7. Donnelly JE
     8. Burns JM

     (2015) Dose-Response of aerobic exercise on cognition: a community-based, pilot randomized controlled trial

     PLoS One 10:e0131647.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131647

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Voss MW
     2. Heo S
     3. Prakash RS
     4. Erickson KI
     5. Alves H
     6. Chaddock L
     7. Szabo AN
     8. Mailey EL
     9. Wójcicki TR
     10. White SM
     11. Gothe N
     12. McAuley E
     13. Sutton BP
     14. Kramer AF

     (2013) The influence of aerobic fitness on cerebral white matter integrity and cognitive function in older adults: results of a one-year exercise intervention

     Human Brain Mapping 34:2972–2985.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22119

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Voss MW
     2. Nagamatsu LS
     3. Liu-Ambrose T
     4. Kramer AF

     (2011) Exercise, brain, and cognition across the life span

     Journal of Applied Physiology 111:1505–1513.

     https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00210.2011

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Weinstein AM
     2. Voss MW
     3. Prakash RS
     4. Chaddock L
     5. Szabo A
     6. White SM
     7. Wojcicki TR
     8. Mailey E
     9. McAuley E
     10. Kramer AF
     11. Erickson KI

     (2012) The association between aerobic fitness and executive function is mediated by prefrontal cortex volume

     Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 26:811–819.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2011.11.008

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. Book

     1. Wickham H

     (2009)

     Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis

     New York: Springer.

     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Wickham H

     (2011) The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis

     Journal of Statistical Software 40:1–29.

     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i01

     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Young J
     2. Angevaren M
     3. Rusted J
     4. Tabet N

     (2015) Aerobic exercise to improve cognitive function in older people without known cognitive impairment

     The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 4:CD005381.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005381.pub4

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. David Moreau

   Centre for Brain Research, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

   Contribution

   DM, Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   d.moreau@auckland.ac.nz

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1957-1941

2. Ian J Kirk

   Centre for Brain Research, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

   Contribution

   IJK, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

3. Karen E Waldie

   Centre for Brain Research, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

   Contribution

   KEW, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

• 10,957

  views

• 757

  downloads

• 79

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.