Cited by 376Physical Activity and HealthDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Abilities and Testing

Physical Activity and Cognitive Vitality

Open access
Prakash, Ruchika Shaurya, Voss, Michelle W., Erickson, Kirk I., Kramer, Arthur F.·2015·Annual Review of Psychology

Abstract

We examine evidence supporting the associations among physical activity (PA), cognitive vitality, neural functioning, and the moderation of these associations by genetic factors. Prospective epidemiological studies provide evidence for PA to be associated with a modest reduction in relative risk of cognitive decline. An evaluation of the PA-cognition link across the life span provides modest support for the effect of PA on preserving and even enhancing cognitive vitality and the associated neural circuitry in older adults, with the majority of benefits seen for tasks that are supported by the prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus. The literature on children and young adults, however, is in need of well-powered randomized controlled trials. Future directions include a more sophisticated understanding of the dose-response relationship, the integration of genetic and epigenetic approaches, inclusion of multimodal imaging of brain-behavior changes, and finally the design of multimodal interventions that may yield broader improvements in cognitive function.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015249

Cites

187 of 187 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [131]131. P Baltes, PA Reuter-Lorenz, F Roesler, pp. 255-76. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prakash, R. S., Voss, M. W., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F.
Affiliations
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Psychology
Published
2015-01-03
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
769-797
ISSN
  • 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2085
OpenAlex
W2127583975
Cited by
376
References
187
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 16
FWCI
3.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
physical activity, cognitive decline, genetic moderation, epigenetics, prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, older adults, children and young adults, dose-response relationship, brain-behavior relationship, multimodal intervention
MeSH terms
Animals, Mental Disorders, Brain, Cognition, Humans, Human Development, Motor Activity

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