Systematic review of the acute and chronic effects of high-intensity interval training on executive function across the lifespan

Figures & data

Figure 1. Diagram of study selection following PRISMA guidelines

Figure 2. Results of risk of bias analysis

Table 1. Summary table of studies on children/adolescents

Authors, country	Design	Participants	Intervention	Measures	Outcomes
Acute intervention (n = 3)
[1] Ludyga et al. (2018) Switzerland	Between-subjects Higher-volume (HV) vs. lower-volume (LV) vs. CON	HV N = 32 Age = 14 ± 1 yrs LV N = 34 Age = 14 ± 1 yrs CON N = 28 Age = 14 ± 1 yrs	M: Circuit training (i.e., jumping jacks, shuttle run, rope skipping, bench stepping, sideway jumps, dribbling while running) *total exercise time: 16 min I: maximal W/R: HV: 1 min/30 sec (passive); LV: 30 sec/30 sec (passive)	Flanker (inhibition)	(–) Flanker: HV (↑) Flanker: LV *LF effect sustained for 60 minutes post-exercise
[2] Cooper, Bandelow et al., 2016 United Kingdom	Crossover HIIT vs. CON	N = 44 (21 boys) Age: 13 ± 1 yrs	M: running (sprint) I: maximal S: 10 W/R: 10 sec/50 sec (active)	Stroop (inhibition) Corsi block (WM)	(↑) Stroop (–) Corsi block
[3] Lambrick et al. (2016) United Kingdom	Crossover HIIT vs. CAE	N = 20 (9 boys) Age: 9 ± 1 yrs	M: running I: moderate: 90% GET; intermediate: 40% VO2peak- GET; vigorous: maximal exertion S: 6 W/R: 1.5 min/1 min (active) *exercise consisted of 33 sec moderate, 45 sec intermediate, 10 sec vigorous running)	Stroop (inhibition)	(↑) Stroop *effect sustained for 30 minutes post-exercise
Chronic intervention (n = 3)
[4] Tottori et al. (2019) Japan	Non-randomized HIIT vs. CON	HIIT N = 27 (17 boys) Age: 10 ± 1 yrs CON n = 29 (14 boys) Age: 10 ± 1 yrs	4 weeks 3 sessions/week M: HICT (i.e., shuttle runs, jumping jacks, vertical jumps, mountain climbers, and plank in and out jumps) I: 85% HRmax W/R: 30 sec/30 sec	Digit span backward (WM)	(↑) Digit span backward
[5] Moreau et al. (2017) New Zeeland	RCT HIIT vs. CON	HIIT N = 152 (62 boys) Age: 10 ± 2 yrs CON n = 153 (56 boys) Age: 10 ± 2 yrs	6 weeks 5 session/week M: sprint I: maximal S: 5 W/R: 20 sec/20 sec – 20 sec/60 sec	Go/no go test, Stroop test, Flanker (Inhibition) N-back, Digit span backward, Corsi block (WM)	(↑) Go/no go test (↑) Stroop (↑) Flanker (↑) N-back (↑) Digit span backward (↑) Corsi block *size of effect: BDNFmet66 carriers > non-carriers
[6] Costigan et al. (2016) Australia	RCT Aerobic-based HICT vs. Aerobic- and muscular-based HICT vs. CON	Aerobic-based HICT N = 21 Age: 16 ± 1 yrs Aerobic- and muscular-based HICT N = 22 Age: 16 ± 1 yrs CON N = 22 Age: 16 ± 1 yrs	8 weeks 3 sessions/week M: Aerobic-based HICT- shuttle runs, jumping jacks, skipping; aerobic- and muscular-based HICT- shuttle runs, jumping jacks, skipping, squats, stepping lunge, push-ups *total exercise time: 8–10 min (wk 1–3: 8 min; wk 4–6: 9 min; wk 7–8: 10 min) I: maximal W/R: 30 sec/30 sec	TMT-B (CF)	(–) TMT-B: aerobic-based (–) TMT-B: aerobic- and muscular-based

Note. M: modality. I: intensity. S: number of sets. W/R: work-to-recovery ratio. HIIE: high-intensity interval exercise. HIIT: high-intensity interval training. HICT: high-intensity functional training. CAE: continues aerobic exercise. CON: control condition/group. WM: working memory. CF: cognitive flexibility. TMT-B: trail-making test B

Table 2. Summary table of studies on adults

Authors, country	Design	Participants	Intervention	Measures	Outcomes
Acute intervention (n = 11)
[7] Kujach et al. (2020) Poland	Between-subjects HIIT vs. CON	HIIT N = 20 (20 men) Age: 21 ± 1 yrs CON N = 16 (16 men) Age: 22 ± 1 yrs	M: Cycling (ergometer) I: >100% VO2max S: 6 W/R: 30 sec/4.5 min (passive)	Stroop (inhibition) TMT-B (CF)	(↑) Stroop (↑) TMT-B
[8] Schwarck et al. (2019) Germany	Between-subjects HIIT vs. CAE vs. CON	HIIT N = 13 (13 men) Age: 24 ± 4 yrs CAE N = 13 (13 men) Age: 24 ± 3 yrs CON N = 13 (13 men) Age: 23 ± 3 yrs	M: Running (treadmill) I: 90% VO2max S: 5 W/R: 2 min/3 min (active)	Stroop (inhibition) TMT-B (CF)	(–) Stroop (–) TMT-B
[9] Miller et al., 2018 United States	Crossover Moderate-volume HIIT (MV) vs. Low-volume HIIT (LV)	N = 25 (12 men) Age: 23 ± 3 yrs	M: Cycling (ergometer) I: 85% HRmax S: 10 sets for MV, 5 sets for LV W/R: 1 min/1 min (active)	Stroop (inhibition)	(↑) Stroop: MV (↑) Stroop: LV *no difference between MV and LV
[10] Dupuy et al. (2018) France	Crossover high-intensity (HI) vs. moderate-intensity (MI) vs. CON	N = 17 (17 men) Age: 28 ± 5 yrs	M: Cycling (ergometer) I: 95% PPO (HI); 60% PPO (MI) S: 6 W/R: 3 min/3 min (passive)	Modified Stroop (CF)	(↑) Modified Stroop: HI
[11] Hashimoto et al. (2018) Japan	Crossover HIIT vs. CAE	N = 14 (14 men) Age: 24 ± 1 yrs	M: Cycling (ergometer) I: 80–90% Wmax S: 4 W/R: 4 min/3 min (active)	Stroop (inhibition)	(↑) Stroop
[12] Kao et al. (2018) United States	Crossover HIIT vs. CAE vs. CON	N = 36 (18 men) Age: 22 ± 3 yrs	M: Running (treadmill) I: 90% HRmax S: 8 W/R: 1 min/1 min (active)	Flanker (inhibition)	(↑) Flanker
[13] Ligeza et al. (2018) Poland	Crossover HIIT vs. CAE vs. CON	N = 18 (18 men) Age: 25 ± 2 yrs	M: Cycling (ergometer) I: PVT2 + 25% Pmax-PVT2 S: 4 W/R: 3 min/3 min (active)	Flanker (inhibition)	(–) Flanker
[14] Gmiat et al. (2017) Poland	Within-subjects, pre-post design *two age groups: young and middle-aged groups	Young N = 8 (8 women) Age: 20 ± 4 yrs Middle-age N = 6 (6 women) Age: 41 ± 7 yrs	M: circuit training (i.e., jumping jacks, push-ups, abdominal crunch, squat, plank, triceps dip on chair, high-knee running, lunge, push-ups with rotations, side plank) *total exercise time: 3 × 7 min/circuit I: maximal effort W/R: 30 sec/10 sec (passive)	Stroop (inhibition) Corsi block (WM)	Young (↑) Corsi block (–) Stroop: young Middle-aged (↓) Corsi block (–) Stroop: middle-aged
[15] Kao et al. (2017) United States	Crossover HIIT vs. CAE vs. CON	N = 64 (27 men) Age: 19 ± 1 yrs	M: Running (treadmill) I: 90% HRmax S: 3 W/R: 1.5 min/1 min (active)	Flanker (inhibition)	(↑) Flanker
[16] Tsukamoto et al. (2016) Japan	Crossover HIIT vs CAE	N = 12 (12 men) Age: 23 ± 1 yrs	M: Cycling (ergometer) I: 90% VO2peak S: 4 W/R: 4 min/3 min (active)	Stroop (inhibition)	(↑) Stroop: HIIT
[17] Alves et al. (2014) Brazil	Crossover HIIT vs CON	N = 22 (9 men) Age: 54 ± 5 yrs	M: Cycling (ergometer) I: 80% HRreserve S: 10 W/R: 1 min/1 min (active)	Stroop (inhibition) Digit span (WM)	(↑) Stroop (–) Digit span
Chronic intervention (n = 6)
[18] Kovacevic et al. (2020) Canada	Non-randomized HIIT vs. CAE vs. CON	HIIT N = 21 (7 men) Age: 72 ± 4 yrs CAE N = 20 (10 men) Age: 72 ± 6 yrs CON N = 23 (8 men) Age: 72 ± 7 yrs	12 weeks 3 sessions/week M: Running (Treadmill) I: 90–95% HRmax S: 4 W/R: 4 min/3 min (active)	Flanker (inhibition) Go/no-go (inhibition)	(–) Flanker (–) Go/no-go
[19] Eather et al. (2019) Australia	RCT HICT vs. CON	HICT N = 22 (8 men) Age: 20 ± 2 yrs CON N = 31 (10 men) Age: 21 ± 2 yrs	8 weeks 3 sessions/week M: varied combinations of aerobic (e.g., shuttles, skips, bear walks) and core resistance (e.g., push-ups, squats, sit ups) exercises using either body weight or basic equipment (e.g., sports balls or 2 kg medicine balls), with a variety of programs were made available for participants to choose (i.e., Sport HIIT, Gym HIIT, Combat HIIT, and Brain HIIT). Each themed session involved adaptations of the basic exercise combination (e.g., Combat HIIT included squat kicks and squat punches, Brain HIIT included shuttle runs while answering questions, and Sport HIIT used shuttle style basketball dribbling as an aerobic task) *total exercise time: 8 min (week 1–4), 10 min (week 5–6), and 12 min (week 7–8) I: 85% HRmax W/R: 30 sec/30 sec (passive)	TMT-B (CF)	(–) TMT-B
[20] Nicolini et al. (2019) Canada	Within-group pre-post design	N = 18 (18 men) Age: 23 ± 4 yrs	6 weeks 3 sessions/week M: Cycling (Ergometer) I: 105–135% PPO S: 5 W/R: 1 min/1.5 min (active)	OSPAN (working memory)	(–) OSPAN
[21] De Sousa et al. (2018) Australia	RCT High-fidelity (HF) vs. low-fidelity (LF) vs. CON *HF/LF was determined by whether in-exercise HR >90% HRmax	HF N = 26 (12 men) Age: 23 ± 4 yrs LF N = 46 (25 men) Age: 24 ± 6 yrs CON N = 19 (10 men) Age: 25 ± 4 yrs	2 weeks 3 sessions/week M: Cycling (ergometer) I: 90%HRmax S: 6 W/R: 30 sec/4 min (first week) to 30 sec/3 min (second week)	Flanker (inhibition)	(↑) Flanker: HF (↑) Flanker: LF *size of effect: HF > LF
[22] Coetsee and Terblanche (2017) South Africa	RCT HIIT vs. CAE vs. RT vs. CON	HIIT N = 13 (3 men) Age: 64 ± 6 yrs CAE N = 13 (3 men) Age: 62 ± 6 yrs RT N = 22 (7 men) Age: 62 ± 5 yrs CON N = 19 (8 men) Age: 63 ± 6 yrs	16 weeks 3 sessions/week M: Running I: 90–95% HRmax S: 4 W/R: 4 min/3 min (active)	Stroop (Inhibition)	(–) Stroop: HIIT
[23] Connolly et al. (2017) United Kingdom	RCT HIIT vs. CAE vs. CON	HIIT N = 15 Age: 44 ± 7 yrs CAE N = 15 Age: 43 ± 7 yrs CON N = 19 Age: 45 ± 7 yrs	12 weeks 2 sessions/week M: Cycling (ergometer) I: 30 sec low-intensity (~30% of maximum effort), 20 sec moderate- intensity (~50–60% of maximum effort) and 10 sec high-intensity (>90% maximum effort) S: 5 W/R: 5 min/2 min (passive)	N-back (WM)	(↑) N-back: HIIT

Note. M: modality. I: intensity. S: number of sets. W/R: work-to-recovery ratio. HIIT: high-intensity interval training. HICT: high-intensity circuit training. CAE: continues aerobic exercise. CON: control condition/group. WM: working memory. CF: cognitive flexibility. PPO: peak power output. OSPAN: operation span task.

Table 3. Cognitive paradigms used to examine executive functions

Inhibition	Working memory	Cognitive flexibility
Stroop (n = 11)	N-back (n = 2)	Trail-making test B (n = 4)
Flanker (n = 7)	Digit span backward (n = 3)	Modified Stroop (n = 1)
Go/no-go (n = 2)	Corsi block tapping test (n = 3)
	Operation span (n = 1)

Figure 3. Illustration of intervention effects. Data are presented in children/adolescents (upper panel) and adults (lower panel)

Note. Data come from 23 studies, with a total of 39 intervention effects.

*Ludyga, S., Pühse, U., Lucchi, S., Marti, J., & Gerber, M. (2018). Immediate and sustained effects of intermittent exercise on inhibitory control and task-related heart rate variability in adolescents. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 22(1), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.05.027

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Cooper, S. B., Bandelow, S., Nute, M. L., Dring, K. J., Stannard, R. L., Morris, J. G., & Nevill, M. E. (2016). Sprint-based exercise and cognitive function in adolescents. Preventive Medicine Reports, 4, 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.06.004

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

*Lambrick, D., Stoner, L., Grigg, R., & Faulkner, J. (2016). Effects of continuous and intermittent exercise on executive function in children aged 8–10 years. Psychophysiology, 53(9), 1335–1342. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12688

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Tottori, N., Morita, N., Ueta, K., & Fujita, S. (2019). Effects of high intensity interval training on executive function in children aged 8–12 years. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(21), 4127. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214127

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Moreau, D., Kirk, I. J., & Waldie, K. E. (2017). High-intensity training enhances executive function in children in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Elife, 6, e25062. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25062

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Costigan, S. A., Eather, N., Plotnikoff, R. C., Hillman, C. H., & Lubans, D. R. (2016). High-intensity interval training for cognitive and mental health in adolescents. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 48(10), 1985–1993. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000993

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kujach, S., Olek, R. A., Byun, K., Suwabe, K., Sitek, E. J., Ziemann, E., Laskowski, R., & Soya, H. (2020). Acute sprint interval exercise increases both cognitive functions and peripheral neurotrophic factors in humans: The possible involvement of lactate. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 1455. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01455

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Schwarck, S., Schmicker, M., Dordevic, M., Rehfeld, K., Müller, N., & Müller, P. (2019). Inter-individual differences in cognitive response to a single bout of physical exercise—A randomized controlled cross-over study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 8(8), 1101. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8081101

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Miller, M. G., Hanson, N., Tennyck, J., & Plantz, K. A comparison of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) volumes on cognitive performance. (2018). Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 3(2), 168–173. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0107-y

 Google Scholar

*Dupuy, O., Billaut, F., Raymond, F., Benraiss, A., Theurot, D., Bosquet, L., Fraser, S., & Tremblay, J. (2018). Effect of acute intermittent exercise on cognitive flexibility: The role of exercise intensity. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 2(2), 146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0078-z

 Google Scholar

*Hashimoto, T., Tsukamoto, H., Takenaka, S., Olesen, N. D., Petersen, L. G., Sørensen, H., Nielsen, H. B., Secher, N. H., & Ogoh, S. (2018). Maintained exercise-enhanced brain executive function related to cerebral lactate metabolism in men. The FASEB Journal, 32(3), 1417–1427. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.201700381RR

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kao, S. C., Drollette, E. S., Ritondale, J. P., Khan, N., & Hillman, C. H. (2018). The acute effects of high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity continuous exercise on declarative memory and inhibitory control. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 38, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.05.011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Ligeza, T. S., Maciejczyk, M., Kałamała, P., Szygula, Z., & Wyczesany, M. (2018). Moderate-intensity exercise boosts the N2 neural inhibition marker: A randomized and counterbalanced ERP study with precisely controlled exercise intensity. Biological Psychology, 135, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2018.04.003

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gmiat, A., Micielska, K., Kozłowska, M., Flis, D. J., Smaruj, M., Kujach, S., Jaworska, J., Lipińska, P., & Ziemann, E. (2017). The impact of a single bout of high intensity circuit training on myokines‘ concentrations and cognitive functions in women of different age. Physiology & Behavior, 179, 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.07.004

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kao, S. C., Westfall, D. R., Soneson, J., Gurd, B., & Hillman, C. H. (2017). Comparison of the acute effects of high‐intensity interval training and continuous aerobic walking on inhibitory control. Psychophysiology, 54(9), 1335–1345. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12889

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Tsukamoto, H., Suga, T., Takenaka, S., Tanaka, D., Takeuchi, T., Hamaoka, T., Isaka, T., & Hashimoto, T. (2016). Greater impact of acute high-intensity interval exercise on post-exercise executive function compared to moderate-intensity continuous exercise. Physiology & Behavior, 155, 224–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.12.021

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Alves, C. R., Tessaro, V. H., Teixeira, L. A., Murakava, K., Roschel, H., Gualano, B., & Takito, M. Y. (2014). Influence of acute high-intensity aerobic interval exercise bout on selective attention and short-term memory tasks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 118(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.2466/22.06.PMS.118k10w4

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Kovacevic, A., Fenesi, B., Paolucci, E., & Heisz, J. J. (2020). The effects of aerobic exercise intensity on memory in older adults. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 45(6), 591–600. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2019-0495

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Eather, N., Riley, N., Miller, A., Smith, V., Poole, A., Vincze, L., Morgan, P. J., & Lubans, D. R. (2019). Efficacy and feasibility of HIIT training for university students: The Uni-HIIT RCT. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 22(5), 596–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.11.016

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Nicolini, C., Toepp, S., Harasym, D., Michalski, B., Fahnestock, M., Gibala, M. J., & Nelson, A. J. (2019). No changes in corticospinal excitability, biochemical markers, and working memory after six weeks of high‐intensity interval training in sedentary males. Physiological Reports, 7(11), e14140. https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.14140

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*de Sousa, A. F., Medeiros, A. R., Benitez-Flores, S., Del Rosso, S., Stults-Kolehmainen, M., & Boullosa, D. A. (2018). Improvements in attention and cardiac autonomic modulation after a 2-weeks sprint interval training program: A fidelity approach. Frontiers in Physiology, 9, 241. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00241

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Coetsee, C., & Terblanche, E. (2017). The effect of three different exercise training modalities on cognitive and physical function in a healthy older population. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 14(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-017-0183-5

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Connolly, L. J., Bailey, S. J., Krustrup, P., Fulford, J., Smietanka, C., & Jones, A. M. (2017). Effects of self-paced interval and continuous training on health markers in women. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 117(11), 2281–2293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3715-9

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar