CC BY
9C~î
m
ifiSr-
PEOPLES' PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Correlation of primary students' physical activity and progress in regulatory functions
UDC 159.943.8
( »
I
A.N. Shatskaya2
Academician of the Russian Academy of Education, Dr.Sc.Psych. A.N. Veraksa1, 2 A.Y. Fominykh2
1Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 2Russian Academy of Education, Moscow
Corresponding author: shatskaya.msu@gmail.com
Abstract
Objective of the study was to analyze correlations between regulatory functions and physical activity in primary school groups.
Methods and structure of the study. We sampled for the study the 8 year-old 2-grade students (n=103, 47 boys and 56 girls) at Moscow schools and split them up into unsporting Group 1 (n=49) and sporting Group 2 (n=54) of individuals trained at least twice a week for 45+min in 1+ sport groups on an off-class basis for at least one year. The sample was tested on an individual basis, with the test data processed by SPSS 21.0 software written in R-language (version 4.0.3). We used NEPSY-II Neuropsychological Test System (designed to test mental functions in the 3-16-year-olds) to rate the self-regulation elements in the sample. Visual operational memory was rated by a Design Memory subtest; restraining control by an Inhibition subtest run in two series with different triggers/ stimuli; cognitive flexibility by a Sorting Animals subtest using cards with animals; and the short-term auditory memory was rated by the A.R. Luria's Ten Words test.
Results and conclusion. Our tests and and analyses rated the habitually sporting children meaningfully higher on the self-regulation and short-term auditory memory scales than their unsporting peers, with the highest progress and inter-group differences in the cognitive flexibility tests. This finding gives us the reasons to recommend reasonably high physical activity among the most efficient cognitive progress facilitation methods.
Keywords: regulatory functions, self-regulation, operational memory, physical activity, sport, primary schoolchildren.
Background. Regulatory function is referred herein as the array of cognitive functions responsible for non-standard (non-stereotyped) responses to new/ challenging situations in need of special concentration. As provided by Miyake et al., the self-regulation functions are headed by visual and auditory operational memory, restraining control (to inhibit a standard response and find the right one) and cognitive flexibility (that facilitates transition from one rule/ viewpoint to another) [7]. It should be noted that the self-regulation skills are often more important for social success than the intellectual abilities [8], and this is the reason for the modern child development programs to give a growing priority to the self-regulation encouragement methods.
Physical activity is commonly ranked among the most accessible methods to facilitate progress in the self-regulation domain since mental functionality is known to fall with sags in the physical fitness [2]. Thus children with sedentary lifestyles are always tested with low restraining control [4], whilst habitual team sports and active games are known to improve cognitive flexibility [10] and develop operational memory in sporting underage groups [3]. Some authors believe, however, that physical activity is beneficial for self-regulation only in case of high-intensity trainings [6]; whilst the others find no meaningful progress in regulatory functions with habitual physical activity [9]. Therefore, benefits of physical activity for progress in self-regulation functions are still arguable in the research community.
PEOPLES' PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Xjjj!
Objective of the study was to analyze correlations between regulatory functions and physical activity in primary school groups.
Methods and structure of the study. We sampled for the study the 8 year-old 2-grade students (n=103, 47 boys and 56 girls) at Moscow schools and split them up into unsporting Group 1 (n=49) and sporting Group 2 (n=54) of individuals trained at least twice a week for 45+min in 1+ sport groups on an off-class basis for at least one year. The sample was tested on an individual basis, with the test data processed by SPSS 21.0 software written in R-language (version 4.0.3). We used NEPSY-II Neuropsychological Test System (designed to test mental functions in the 3-16-year-olds) to rate the self-regulation elements in the sample [9]. Visual operational memory was rated by a Design Memory subtest; restraining control by an Inhibition subtest run in two series with different triggers/ stimuli; cognitive flexibility by a Sorting Animals subtest using cards with animals; and the short-term auditory memory was rated by the A.R. Luria's Ten Words test [10].
Results and discussion. We first rated and analyzed correlations between the sporting lifestyle and self-regulation function elements (see Table 1); and found the highest correlation for cognitive flexibility. This finding gives us the reasons to believe that physical activity facilitates progress in cognitive flexibility critical for decision-finding and problem solving capacity.
Table 1. Correlations between the sporting lifestyle and self-regulation function elements (*p<0.05; ** p<0.01)
Tests Sporting lifestyle
Visual operational memory 2g**
Naming time - 2*
Inhibition time -,31*
Attention switch, missed errors - 2*
Switch time - 3**
Cognitive flexibility, number of right groups ,43**
Short-term auditory memory, reps needed to memorize -22*
Then we analyzed the subtest data of the unsporting Group 1 versus sporting Group 2: see Table 2.
Sporting Group 2 was on average tested higher than the unsporting on the Visual Operational Memory Image and Visual Operational Memory Total Score scales; and faster in the Inhibition test, although the group error rates were virtually the same. It is not unlikely that the sporting lifestyle develops the fast decision-making abilities encouraged by the sport-specific instructions and goals, with a top priority to fast completion; and this is the reason why the sporting children get used to concentrate on this aspect as required by their sporting experiences. Furthermore, sporting Group 2 was tested meaningfully better than Group 1 (56% correct namings versus 36%, respectively) in the Sorting
Table 2. Group 1 and Group 2 test data averages and differences, (M - average, p - meaning ratio)
Subtests Group 1 Group 2 t / U test p
Visual operational memory
Design memory: image 48,92 52,43 t = -3,317 0,001
Design memory: location 26,63 27,69 U = 957,0 0,013
Design memory: total score 107,4 118,9 t = -2,876 0,005
Restraining control
Naming: missed errors 0,24 0,15 U = 1241,0 0,411
Naming: corrected errors 0,65 0,37 U = 1110,0 0,085
Naming: time 60,16 56,2 t = 2,128 0,036
Inhibition: missed errors 1,29 1,24 U = 1290, 0,816
Inhibition: corrected errors 2,38 2,26 U = 1212,5 0,458
Inhibition: time 88,88 79,8 t = 2,542 0,013
Attention switch: missed errors 5,08 2,79 U = 1021,5 0,043
Switch: corrected errors 4,67 3,66 U = 1137,5 0,217
Switch: time 126,6 111,8 t = 3,108 0,002
Cognitive flexibility
Sorting animals 4,37 6,76 t = -4,87 0,000
Short-term auditory memory
Ten Words: reps needed to memorize 4,51 3,93 U = 989,5 0,024
http://www.tpfk.ru
53
PEOPLES' PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Animals test - that may be interpreted as indicative of the higher cognitive flexibility. And the short-term auditory memory tests also rated sporting Group 2 significantly higher than Group 1 - that may be due to the fact that sporting children naturally develop due attention to verbal instructions on tactics and goals in the sports groups, with their short-term memorizing abilities facilitated by the training and competitive settings more efficiently.
Conclusion. Our tests and and analyses rated the habitually sporting children significantly higher on the self-regulation and short-term auditory memory scales than their unsporting peers, with the highest progress in the cognitive flexibility tests. Therefore, sporting lifestyles were tested to facilitate self-regulation skills critical for success in the learning and socializing domains. We recommend further studies to anlayze correleations of the regulatory functions with the sport-specific physical activity to find the sport disciplines most beneficial for the children's development agendas.
References
1. Luria A.R. Fundamentals of neuropsychology. Study guide for students of higher education institutions. 3rd ed., ster. 2004.
2. Maksimova E.N., Alekseenkov A.E. Effect of motor activity on physical condition and intelligence of individual. Nauka-2020. 2019. no. 4 (29).
3. Nikolaeva E.I., Isayko A.A., Fedoruk A.S. Relationship between operational memory and inhibitory control characteristics and specific immediate environment of preschooler and his
involvement in physical activity. Kompleksnyie issledovaniya detstva. 2019. V. 1. no. 2.
4. Chieffi S. et al. Exercise influence on hippocam-pal function: possible involvement of orexin-A. Frontiers in physiology. 2017. V. 8. P. 85.
5. Korkman M., Kirk U., Kemp S.L. NEPSY II. Administrative manual. San Antonio. TX: Psychological Corporation. 2007.
6. McNeill J. et al. Longitudinal associations of physical activity and modified organized sport participation with executive function and psychosocial health in preschoolers. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2020. V. 38. no 24. pp. 2858-2865.
7. Miyake A. et al. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex «frontal lobe» tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive psychology. 2000. V. 41. no. 1. pp. 49-100.
8. Moffitt T.E. Childhood self-control predicts adult health, wealth, and crime. Paper presented at the Multi-Disciplinary Symposium Improving the Well-Being of Children and Youth. 2012.
9. Morris J. L. et al. The Daily Mile™ initiative: Exploring physical activity and the acute effects on executive function and academic performance in primary school children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2019. V. 45. pp. 101583.
10. Schmidt M. et al. Cognitively engaging chronic physical activity, but not aerobic exercise, affects executive functions in primary school children: a group-randomized controlled trial. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2015. V. 37. No. 6. pp. 575-591.
