Heilmann Florian, Weinberg Henrietta, Wollny Rainer
Movement Science Lab, Institute of Sport Science, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany.
Movement and Sport Psychology, Institute for Sport Science, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, 07749 Jena, Germany.
Brain Sci. 2022 Aug 12;12(8):1071. doi: 10.3390/brainsci12081071.
Exercise modes can be categorized based on the skills required (open vs. closed skills), which implicates various demands on cognitive skills, especially executive functions (EFs). Thus, their practice may have varying effects on EFs. There is a lack of detailed analysis of cognitive requirements and suitable classification of sports. It is hypothesized that the amount and type of cognitive requirements of sports lead to small effect sizes when comparing open-skill exercising (OSE) and closed-skill exercising (CSE) athletes. The current meta-analysis evaluates the variances in EFs skills caused by particular sport modes. Four research databases (Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, PsychINFO) were searched for cross-sectional studies in which the authors compare the performance in EF tasks of OSE and CSE athletes. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using funnel plots and two reviewer selection process (overall and subgroup analysis; low risk of publication and selection bias). A total of 19 studies were included, revealing an overall effect size of Hedge’s g = 0.174 (p = 0.157), favoring OSE for the development of EFs. The subgroup analysis revealed the effects for the subdomains of EFs (cognitive flexibility: Hedge’s g = 0.210 > inhibitory control: Hedge’s g = 0.191 > working memory: Hedge’s g = 0.138; p > 0.05), which could be characterized as low to moderate. The hypothesis that studies with the smallest effect sizes compare sport modes with similar cognitive demands was rejected. The paper discusses the differentiation of sports into OSE and CSE and presents new approaches for their categorization.
运动模式可以根据所需技能进行分类（开放技能与封闭技能），这意味着对认知技能，尤其是执行功能（EFs）有不同的要求。因此，它们的练习可能对执行功能产生不同的影响。目前缺乏对运动认知要求的详细分析和适当分类。据推测，在比较开放技能运动（OSE）和封闭技能运动（CSE）运动员时，运动认知要求的数量和类型导致效应量较小。当前的荟萃分析评估了特定运动模式引起的执行功能技能差异。检索了四个研究数据库（科学网、PubMed、ScienceDirect、PsychINFO），以查找横断面研究，其中作者比较了OSE和CSE运动员在执行功能任务中的表现。使用漏斗图和两种评审员选择过程（总体和亚组分析；低发表风险和选择偏倚）进行偏倚风险评估。共纳入19项研究，结果显示总体效应量为Hedge's g = 0.174（p = 0.157），表明OSE在执行功能发展方面更具优势。亚组分析揭示了执行功能子领域的效应（认知灵活性：Hedge's g = 0.210 > 抑制控制：Hedge's g = 0.191 > 工作记忆：Hedge's g = 0.138；p > 0.05），其特征为低到中度。关于效应量最小的研究比较认知要求相似的运动模式这一假设被拒绝。本文讨论了将运动分为OSE和CSE的差异，并提出了新的分类方法。
