17.10.2026 · 5 min read
Executive functions are not a general synonym for memory or intelligence. They are a set of processes that help manage goal-directed behaviour. Three are usually distinguished: inhibitory control — the ability to suppress an automatic reaction; working memory — holding and updating information; and cognitive flexibility — switching between rules and strategies.
These abilities are measured with different computer-based and paper tests. An improvement in reaction time on one task does not necessarily mean a broad "development of the brain", and a statistical change in a test does not guarantee a noticeable benefit in study, work or everyday life.
Exercise may influence cognitive function through cardiovascular and metabolic adaptation, cerebral blood flow, neurotrophic signalling and plasticity. Sport tasks also have a cognitive side. In an unpredictable game you have to track an opponent, choose an action and suppress a previous plan; in steady cyclical exercise there are usually fewer external decisions.
Hence an attractive hypothesis: open, coordinatively complex and cognitively rich activities should be better than simple ones. But the name of a sport is a crude characteristic. One football session may be a series of predictable drills, another a continuous game with decisions. Dance may require new motor learning or the repetition of a familiar sequence.
Liu, Fan and Zhou included 47 randomised controlled trials — 49 independent samples, 61 training groups and 49 control groups. In total the analysis covered 4,195 participants: 2,250 children, 756 adolescents and 1,189 older adults. Young and middle-aged adults were not included in the review.
The authors kept 202 effect estimates, because one study often measured several executive functions. A three-level model took into account that results from the same study are dependent. Age, cognitive engagement, coordination complexity, environmental predictability, the need for motor learning and the type of control group were examined separately.
On average, structured exercise improved executive-function measures compared with control: Hedges' g = 0.412, 95% confidence interval 0.284 to 0.540. Positive average estimates were obtained for inhibitory control (g = 0.361), working memory (g = 0.351) and cognitive flexibility (g = 0.521). Formally, the differences between these domains did not reach statistical significance.
Average effects were positive in children (g = 0.363), adolescents (g = 0.455) and older adults (g = 0.437), but age was not a significant moderator. High cognitive engagement also showed no convincing advantage over low or moderate engagement: the difference was Δg = 0.095 with a confidence interval from −0.146 to 0.337. Likewise, the superiority of high coordination complexity or a high need for motor learning was not confirmed.
Overall heterogeneity was 74.45%. The prediction interval for the true effect of a future comparable comparison ranged from −0.476 to 1.299. In other words, the average result is positive, but an individual new intervention may give a much smaller effect or show no advantage.
The absence of a statistically significant difference between subgroups does not prove equivalence. To establish equality or a small acceptable difference, specially designed analyses and sufficient power are needed. Here some categories included few studies, and the ways of classifying training inevitably simplified its real content.
Hedges' g is a standardised difference between different scales. It cannot be translated into "percent improvement of the brain". The authors stress that there is no single minimal important change for the set of tests used.
The 2023 meta-analysis by Zhang et al. in healthy people also found a positive overall effect of chronic exercise on cognitive function: SMD = 0.39. It reported differences between types of training, but pooled a broader set of cognitive outcomes and ages.
At the same time, a 2023 umbrella review of randomised trials called for caution: the quality of the primary trials, small samples and potential systematic errors weaken causal conclusions. The new analysis does not remove this problem. Of the 47 included trials, none received an overall rating of low risk of bias; 44 raised some concerns, and three were at high risk. The authors rated the certainty of the evidence as low.
There is no reason to ignore accessibility, safety, interest and physical goals for the sake of a supposed "most neuro-beneficial" sport. Regular structured activity is on average associated with better executive performance, but today's data do not allow a universal winner to be prescribed.
For a child, a lasting, age-appropriate and well-taught activity matters most. An older person needs safety, gradual progression and a combination of aerobic load, strength and balance. A person with a medical condition should discuss the programme with a doctor or rehabilitation specialist: the results of the review were obtained in non-clinical samples.
Cognitively demanding games, dance or martial arts may be an interesting choice, but their supposed advantage over other training remains a hypothesis rather than an established rule.
Physical exercise on average supports executive functions, but the question "which sport is best" is posed too crudely. The benefit depends not only on the name of the discipline but also on the programme, intensity, instruction, control, baseline state and exactly which test is used for assessment.
Tags: brain health, exercise, cognition, executive function, training
Research on training, nutrition and recovery: the key points worth knowing. One email a week with the new Sport in Luxembourg articles: title, short description and a link to read.
We use cookies for visitor analytics. You can accept or decline their use. Learn more in our Privacy Policy
