Systematic review of physical activity and cognitive development in early childhood
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES To comprehensively review all observational and experimental studies examining the relationship between physical activity and cognitive development during early childhood (birth to 5 years). DESIGN Systematic review. METHODS Electronic databases were searched in July, 2014. No study design, date, or language limits were imposed on the search. Included studies had to be published, peer reviewed articles that satisfied the a priori determined population (apparently healthy children aged birth to 5 years), intervention (duration, intensity, frequency, or patterns of physical activity), comparator (various durations, intensity, or patterns of physical activity), and outcome (cognitive development) study criteria. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed in December 2014. RESULTS A total of seven studies, representing 414 participants from five different countries met the inclusion criteria, including two observational and five experimental studies. Six studies found increased or higher duration/frequency of physical activity had statistically significant (p<0.05) beneficial effects on at least one cognitive development outcome, including 67% of the outcomes assessed in the executive function domain and 60% in the language domain. No study found that increased or higher duration/frequency of physical activity had statistically significant detrimental effects on cognitive development. Six of the seven studies were rated weak quality with a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS This review provides some preliminary evidence that physical activity may have beneficial effects on cognitive development during early childhood. Given the shortage of the information and the weak quality of available evidence, future research is needed to strengthen the evidence base in this area.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Carson and colleagues rated six of the seven studies as having weak experimental quality and high risk of reporting bias using PRISMA guidelines.
“However, the authors rated six of the seven studies as having weak experimental quality and a high risk of reporting bias using PRISMA guidelines.”
From Physical Activity, Cognition, and Brain Outcomes: A Review of the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines (2019) · cites this paper as [24]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 355
- Authors
- Carson, V., Hunter, S., Kuzik, N., Wiebe, S. A., Spence, J. C., Friedman, A., Tremblay, M. S., Slater, L., & Hinkley, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Deakin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Carson, Valerie
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 573-578
- ISSN
- 1440-2440 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W815316258
- Semantic Scholar
- 1be0a57cabcd785805e9e8a1384a4e5e198d813b
- Cited by
- 355
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 2.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of science and medicine in sport (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Norlien Foundation
- Alberta Family Wellness Initiative (AFWI)
- Alberta Centre for Child, Family and Community Research (ACCFCR)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Children's Physical and Motor Development
- Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Education
- Keywords
- physical activity, cognitive development, early childhood, executive function, language development
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Studies as Topic, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Exercise
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review