JOURNAL OF

Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 2014, 36, 69-79

http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0044
2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.

SPORT EXERCISE
PSYCHOLOGY

Official Journal of NASPSPA

www.JSEP-Journal.com
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Acute Physical Exercise Affected

Processing Efficiency in an Auditory Attention Task
More Than Processing Effectiveness
Stephan Dutke,1 Thomas Jaitner,1 Timo Berse,2 and Jonathan Barenberg2
1University

of Kaiserslautern; 2University of Mnster

Research on effects of acute physical exercise on performance in a concurrent cognitive task has generated
equivocal evidence. Processing efficiency theory predicts that concurrent physical exercise can increase resource
requirements for sustaining cognitive performance even when the level of performance is unaffected. This
hypothesis was tested in a dual-task experiment. Sixty young adults worked on a primary auditory attention
task and a secondary interval production task while cycling on a bicycle ergometer. Physical load (cycling)
and cognitive load of the primary task were manipulated. Neither physical nor cognitive load affected primary task performance, but both factors interacted on secondary task performance. Sustaining primary task
performance under increased physical and/or cognitive load increased resource consumption as indicated by
decreased secondary task performance. Results demonstrated that physical exercise effects on cognition might
be underestimated when only single task performance is the focus.
Keywords: acute exercise, physical load, cognitive resources, processing efficiency, working memory
A rapidly growing body of research has recently
accumulated on how single bouts of exercise influence
cognitive functioning (for recent reviews and metaanalyses, e.g., see Barenberg, Berse, & Dutke, 2011;
Chang, Labban, Gapin, & Etnier, 2012; Lambourne &
Tomporowski, 2010; McMorris, Sproule, Turner, & Hale,
2011; Tomporowski, Lambourne, & Okumura, 2011). A
basic distinction in this field of research focuses on the
temporal relation between physical exercise and measuring cognitive functioning. Effects of cognitive functioning
after physical exercise seem to require different theoretical explanations than effects on cognitive functioning
during physical exercise (e.g., Audiffren, 2009; Chang et
al., 2012; Lambourne & Tomporowski, 2010). In the current study, we investigated the latter paradigm and argued,
based on the processing efficiency theory (Eysenck &
Derakshan, 2011), that the effects of physical exercise on
concurrent cognitive functioning might be systematically
underestimated in many experiments.
Numerous studies have explored under what conditions cognitive functions are improved or impaired by
concurrent physical exercise, but the empirical evidence
is equivocal. Lambourne and Tomporowski (2010),
Stephan Dutke is now with the Institute for Psychology in
Education, University of Mnster, Mnster, Germany. Thomas
Jaitner is now with the Institute of Sport and Sport Science,
University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany. Timo Berse and
Jonathan Barenberg are with the Institute for Psychology in
Education, University of Mnster, Mnster, Germany.

for example, included 21 studies with 126 effect sizes

in their meta-analysis. Dependent measures that were
administered during physical exercise (running or cycling
between 6 and 100 min at different loads) assessed
attention, short-term and working memory, executive
functions, visual search, and simple and choice reaction time. Overall, physical exercise impaired cognitive
functioning, although the effect sizes were heterogeneous
and the mean effect size was low. Chang et al. (2012)
included 79 studies with 1,034 effect sizes, 398 of which
were assessed during physical exercise. The dependent
measures assessed attention, reaction time, crystallized
intelligence, executive functions, memory, and various
information processing tasks. The overall effect size
was small but positive. In both meta-analyses, several
moderator effects were identified post hoc, suggesting
that physical exercise could foster or impair cognitive
functioning depending, for example, on the characteristics of the cognitive task or the type and the intensity of
the physical load. McMorris et al. (2011) restricted their
meta-analysis to studies investigating exercise effects
on working memory performance. They found positive
effects on response time but negative effects on accuracy.
Unfortunately, this analysis failed to differentiate between
measuring the dependent variables during or immediately
after exercise.
How can these heterogeneous effects be accounted
for theoretically? Most of the psychological explanations
are predicated on the resource concept (e.g., Audiffren,
2009). In this context, resources are understood as a
69

70Dutke et al.

certain amount of processing capacity that can be allocated to a task (e.g., Kahneman, 1973; Sanders, 1983).
Physical exercise, within a certain range of intensity, is
assumed to initiate physiological processes contributing
to the increase of resources. The mechanisms underlying
exercise-induced increase of resources might be related
to the increased release of brain-derived neurotrophic
factor (BDNF, e.g., Rasmussen et al., 2009), regionally
increased cerebral oxygen levels (e.g., Rooks, Thom,
McCully, & Dishman, 2010), or increased cerebral
concentrations of norepinephrine and dopamine (e.g.,
Hattori, Naoi, & Nishino, 1994; Meeusen & De Meirleir,
1995; Winter et al., 2007). The assumption that exercise
increases cognitive processing resources has been supported by observations of improved cognitive functioning during exercise (e.g., Audiffren, 2009; Tomporowski,
2003). However, executing physical activities might not
only generate resources but also consume resources,
because controlling physical activities also requires
resources that cannot be allocated simultaneously to the
cognitive task. This competition for processing resources
between physical and cognitive task requirements can be
observed when cognitive functioning becomes impaired
during exercise (e.g., Dietrich & Sparling, 2004). For
example, treadmill running was shown to impair
cognitive performance more than ergometer cycling
(Lambourne & Tomporowski, 2010). Competition for
processing resources may be the underlying mechanism.
Treadmill running requires more balance and more
computational resources for movement coordination
than cycling on a static ergometer, which requires fewer
resources and impairs concurrent cognitive processing to
a smaller extent than treadmill running. Thus, physical
exercise might support cognitive performance when it
induces an increase of resources that exceeds its resource
consumption (e.g., Huertas, Zahonero, Sanabria, &
Lupianez, 2011).
At the neurophysiological level, these processes
are described by the reticular-activating hypofrontality
(RAH) model (Dietrich & Audiffren, 2011). The authors
assumed that exercise increases resources by stimulating
reticular-activating formations of the brain stem. These
brain formations are thought to support the implicit cognitive system (Dietrich & Audiffren, 2011) responsible
for skill-based, well-learned, automatized responses that
are largely regulated without conscious awareness. This
resource allocation is functional, because the implicit
system is highly involved in the regulation of motor
processes required by exercise. Consequently, exercise
might increase cognitive performance in tasks relying
mainly on well-learned, automatized behavior. Simultaneously, activity of the prefrontal cortex is reduced,
in particular under heavy exercise (e.g., Tashiro, et al.,
2001). The prefrontal cortex is seen as the core formation supporting the explicit cognitive system (Dietrich &
Audiffren, 2011) responsible for conscious, rule-based,
strategic, and executive processes. The explicit system
is not necessarily involved in the motor regulation of
exercise. Thus, resources are allocated to those brain

formations supporting the implicit system at the cost of

the explicit system (Dietrich & Audiffren, 2011). Consequently, exercise might reduce cognitive performance
in tasks relying mainly on executive and conscious processing. This resource-allocating policy might explain
why exercise impaired prefrontal-dependent cognitive
performance but did not impair cognitive performance
that relied less on executive prefrontal regulation (e.g.,
Dietrich & Sparling, 2004). Similarly, the RAH model
can explain the finding by McMorris et al. (2011) that
exercise impaired the accuracy of working memory performance (related to the explicit system) but accelerated
response times (related to the implicit system).
In the following, we focus on two approaches that,
beyond the processes described above, highlight energetic-motivational influences on resource allocation that
have been lacking in research on the cognitive effects of
physical exercise. Hockey (1996, 1997) assumed that a
lack of resources caused by the demands of coping with
stressful states or concurrent tasks does not necessarily
impair performance in a primary task. In his model, two
control mechanisms were postulated. First, an automatic
control loop is activated in which mismatches between
goals and actual performance are detected and resource
allocation is adjusted accordingly. If this mechanism
fails to resolve the mismatch, the second mechanism
the effortful control loopis engaged, in which an adequate strategy is selected that leads to either a conscious
increase of effort or a downward adjustment of goals.
The first type of adjustment may compensate for the lack
of resources and thus prevent a performance decrease,
whereas the second type of adjustment reconciles the
goals with impaired performance. Accordingly, task
performance can be maintained even when resources
are constrained, such as under stress or when multiple,
concurrent tasks compete for resources.
Eysenck elaborated on this process in his processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Eysenck,
1996) and later in the attentional control theory (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009; Eysenck & Derakshan, 2011).
The core premise in these theories is that resource
demands arising from any concurrent processing to a
primary task (e.g., coping with worries, stress, secondary tasks) have a motivational function. Any threat to
performance in the primary task can increase resource
allocation to this task by increased effort. To assess
these processing outcomes, Eysenck (1979) distinguished
between performance effectiveness (i.e., the quality
or level of performance) and processing efficiency
(the relation between performance effectiveness and
resources invested). If performance in the primary
task is threatened and the compensatory investment of
effort stabilizes performance, performance effectiveness
remains constant but processing efficiency decreases,
because more resources and more effort are necessary
to produce the same effect. In conclusion, additional
resource demands are expected to impair processing efficiency more than performance effectiveness (Eysenck
& Derakshan, 2011, p. 958).

Acute Physical Exercise and Processing Efficiency 71

Although the processing efficiency theory has been

primarily tested in the context of stress and anxiety (for
a review, see Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo,
2007), the theory is also applicable when analyzing
the effects of concurrent physical exercise on cognitive performance. If the execution of physical exercise,
for example, reduces the allocation of resources to the
prefrontal cortex (hypofrontality, Dietrich & Audiffren, 2011), performance in a simultaneous cognitive
task may become impaired when this task requires
explicit processing. However, if the threatening deterioration of cognitive performance leads to a sufficient
increase of effort, performance effectiveness might
remain unchanged. Processing efficiency is likely to
decrease, though, as more resources are required to
keep performance constant. The processing efficiency
theory presents an opportune framework for evaluating
the effects of physical exercise on cognitive functioning, particularly given that the studies reviewed in the
introduction only measured performance effectiveness
and not processing efficiency. In these studies, a lack of
physical exercise effects on cognitive performance was
typically interpreted as an indication that the physical
exercise had no (negative) effect on cognitive processing. However, this conclusion may be premature when
the results are viewed from the perspective of Hockeys
compensatory control mechanism and Eysencks processing efficiency idea. To conclude a lack of physical
exercise effects on cognitive performance, results must
show that both performance effectiveness and processing efficiency were unaffected by physical exercise.
When processing efficiency is not assessed, the effects
on cognitive functioning might remain hidden and thus
be underestimated.
To empirically demonstrate this type of processing, we conducted an experiment in which participants
worked on a primary and a secondary cognitive task
during high or medium physical load by means of
ergometer cycling. We chose an auditory attention task
with working memory components as the primary
cognitive task. Participants were instructed to listen to
pairs of spoken words denoting two-digit numbers (e.g.,
twenty-seven and twenty-three). For each pair they
were required to decide whether the two words denoted
identical numbers. To manipulate cognitive load, the
audio quality was artificially manipulated, which made
the identification of the numbers either easier or more
difficult. This task required simultaneous decoding,
maintaining, comparison, and decision processes. Thus,
it shared central features with the tasks used in physical exercise research (e.g., McMorris et al., 2011) and
experiments on processing efficiency (e.g., Eysenck et
al., 2007). Moreover, performance of this task should
depend primarily on the resource provisions of the
explicit system (Dietrich & Audiffren, 2011).
As a secondary cognitive task, we chose interval production (e.g., Zakay, 1990). Participants were
required to press a button every 2 s as regularly and
accurately as possible. This task was chosen because the

variability of produced intervals is known to increase

with concurrent tasks that demand short-term memory
(e.g., Field & Groeger, 2004) and working memory (e.g.,
Fortin & Breton, 1995) and in particular when activities
of the central executive are involved (Ogden, Salominaite, Jones, Fisk, & Montgomery, 2011; Shinohara,
1999). Therefore, we expected this task to be sensitive
to resource requirements of the primary cognitive task.
This task was also chosen because it met the criteria for
adequate dual task configurations (Abernethy, 1988).
The study design provided the means to investigate
the effects of physical exercise (medium vs. high load)
on performance in a more or less demanding cognitive
task. However, assessing processing efficiency requires
a secondary cognitive task, the performance on which
we assumed would indicate the amount of resources
still available in face of the requirements by the primary
cognitive task, controlling physical exercise, and for
coordinating both activities. The higher the physical or
cognitive load, the more additional resources must be
activated for maintaining performance in the primary
cognitive task. As a result, performance in the secondary
cognitive task should decrease. By incorporating the secondary task into the design, therefore, assessment of both
performance effectiveness and processing efficiency was
made possible. Even if performance effectiveness were to
remain constant, decreased processing efficiency could
still be detected. That is, if performance in the primary
task were not affected by increased physical or cognitive load, performance in the secondary cognitive task
would drop because of increased resource consumption
for stabilizing performance in the primary task. Thus, we
assumed that decreased performance in the secondary
task would indicate decreased processing efficiency in
coping with the primary task.
In sum, we expected increased physical exercise
to impair the efficiency of cognitive performance in a
concurrent task involving attention and working memory
processes. When physical exercise reduces primary
cognitive task resources, performance deterioration
can be prevented by allocating effortful, compensatory
resource to the primary task (word comparison task).
Accordingly, performance in the secondary cognitive
task (interval production) was expected to decrease,
indicating increased resource consumption, that is,
decreased processing efficiency.

Method
Participants
The sample comprised 60 student participants (14 female)
from different University of Kaiserslautern faculties,
ranging from 19 to 32 years (M = 26.1). All participants
were German native speakers or spoke German fluently.
The participants were familiar with ergometer pedaling (had used an ergometer at least one time before the
experiment), but they were not highly trained in cycling
(none of the participants performed on competitive level).

72Dutke et al.

All participants reported to be right-handed when asked

by the experimenter whether they would describe themselves as right or left handed. They received a payment
of 20 euros for participating.

Experimental Tasks
The primary and secondary task were tested in a pilot study
with N = 18 participants from the same subject pool as the
experimental sample. All pilot participants reported that
they did not experience any motoric problems in executing
these tasks during cycling. In addition, we did not observe
any noticeably deviations in their pedaling cadence.
Primary Cognitive Task (Word Comparison). Par-

ticipants heard 60 pairs of stimuli via a headset and were

asked to indicate whether the first and the second word of
a pair denoted the same numbers. This task required1 (a)
attention for correctly identifying the numbers, (b) maintaining the first number until the second word of the pair
was decoded, (c) comparing both numbers, (d) deciding
about their equality, and (e) responding by a key press. The
stimuli were artificially generated spoken words denoting
two-digit numbers. The second stimulus was given 3 s after
the first stimulus of a pair had been presented and either
was or was not identical to the first one. The participants
were then required to decide whether these stimuli were
identical and respond by pressing with the right thumb
one of two response buttons located at the right side of
the ergometers handlebar. The interval length of 3 s was
long enough to make the memory requirement salient but
too short for applying higher-order encoding or retrieval
strategies which would have increased interindividual
variance. Half of the pairs consisted of identical stimuli;
the other half consisted of randomly chosen words that
denoted different numbers. The sequence of pairs was
randomized for each participant. The intervals between the
stimulus pairs were randomly varied between 10 and 30 s
with a mean interval of 20 s. Thus, the timing of the next
pair was not entirely predictable. The total duration of the
word comparison task was 27 min. The dependent measures were the number of correct judgments (Cronbachs
= .92) and the response time between the presentation
of the second stimulus and input from pressing one of the
two response keys (Cronbachs = .77).
Secondary Cognitive Task (Interval Production). The
participants were instructed to press a button at the left
side of the handlebar (with the left thumb) every 2 s. Producing these intervals was continued throughout the entire
duration of the primary task. As a dependent measure,
the mean deviation in milliseconds from the 2-s pulse
was computed. This measure is often referred to as the
absolute interval production error (Zakay, 1990) because
it does not assess over- or underestimation.

Experimental Manipulations
Cognitive Load. Cognitive load was manipulated by

varying the articulatory quality of the word stimuli in

the primary cognitive task by using two different speech

generation methods (Noyes, Hellier, & Edworthy, 2006).
Half of the sample heard stimuli that were generated by a
diphone-based speech synthesizer that produced an intelligible but very artificial acoustic output. The other half of
the sample was presented with previously recorded words
spoken by humans, which were concatenated to produce
complex words denoting two-digit numbers. Thus, the
acoustic output of this system had a quality similar to
that of a human speaker. The pilot study demonstrated
that listeners judged the synthesized stimuli as sounding
more artificial and less human-like than the stimuli based
on recorded speech. The lack of familiarity was expected
to increase cognitive load, because automatic perceptual
processes were assumed to be less reliable in response to
the synthesized stimuli, resulting in the requirement of
more controlled processes (e.g., Luce, Feustel, & Pisoni,
1983; Waterworth & Thomas, 1985).
Physical Load. While executing the primary and secondary cognitive tasks, all participants cycled on a computer-controlled bicycle ergometer (ergo_bike Premium
8i, Daum Electronic). The ergometer brake was regulated
for one half of the sample such that the participants
cycled at approximately 75% of their individual anaerobic
threshold (medium physical load condition) according to
a prior individual fitness test (see below). The other half
of the participants cycled at approximately 120% of their
individual anaerobic threshold (high physical load condition). The individual anaerobic threshold and maximum
load was assessed from a fitness test on a separate day
before the experiment. The load levels were defined in
terms of power output (measured in watts).

Individual Differences
Although participants were randomly assigned to the
experimental conditions, we assessed four variables to
determine whether the experimental groups differed with
regard to the distribution of individual differences.
Fitness. The participants fitness status was assessed
by a graduated test on the bicycle ergometer. Participants
started cycling with a load of 50 W which increased by 20
W according to the Conconi protocol (Grazzi et al., 1999).
The procedure ended when the participants indicated that
they had reached their physical limit. The heart rate was
registered continuously, and the anaerobic threshold was
estimated by a modified Conconi test (Conconi, Ferrari,
Ziglio, Droghetti, & Codeca, 1982). The Conconi test
allows for a noninvasive detection of the anaerobic threshold by inspecting the relation between heart rate and exercise intensity. The curve typically proceeds linearly at low
and moderate intensities switching to a curvilinear course
at high intensities. The anaerobic threshold correlates with
the heart rate deflection point, which reflects a cut in the
transition from linear to curvilinear growth (Conconi et
al., 1996). The power output reached in this test at the
anaerobic threshold served as the basis to compute their
load level (75% or 120%) in the experimental run.

Acute Physical Exercise and Processing Efficiency 73

Hearing. Before the experimental run, each partici-

pant was presented with 20 sample stimuli for the word

comparison task via a headset. The participants listened
to these stimuli at different volume levels while cycling
under medium or high load (depending on the experimental condition they had been assigned to) to determine the
optimum volume level for stimuli comparison during the
experimental run.

Verbal Ability. Given that the primary cognitive task

included verbal materials, we tested individual differences with regard to verbal ability and verbal knowledge
with the Intelligence Structure Test 2000 R (Amthauer,
Brocke, Liepmann, & Beauducel, 2001).

Experience in Interval Production. As a proxy for

experience in producing time intervals, we asked the participants whether they were trained in singing or playing
a musical instrument.

Design
A 2 2 between-participants design was used with physical load (medium vs. high) and cognitive load (lower vs.
higher) with n = 15 participants in each experimental
group. All participants were randomly assigned to the
experimental conditions.

Procedure
The experiment was run one participant at a time. In the
first session, the experimenter explained the procedure
and interviewed the participant about health behavior,
diseases, and the use of alcohol and other drugs. Two
participants were excluded from the experiment because
of information suggesting possible health risks for the
cycling intervention. They were informed about the risk
and were paid for their participation. All other participants received a written description of the procedure and
they completed an informed consent form. Those who
gave their consent, completed the verbal ability scales,
selected their individual volume level for the presentation of the verbal stimuli, and answered questions about
their experience in music. Finally, the fitness test was
conducted.
In the second session, the primary and the secondary tasks were explained by the experimenter and then
the participants practiced both tasks for 3 min.2 The
instructions emphasized the differences between the
tasks. They were told that the interval production was a
background task to be performed continuously throughout the experimental run, and its pace depended on the
participants control, whereas processing and responding
in the word comparison task was triggered by external
stimuli of word pairs. After receiving feedback about
performance in the practice phase, the participant started
cycling in a 10-min incremental warming-up phase (2
min at 50 W, 2 min at 75 W, 6 min at 100 W at their
preferred speed). After warming up, participants cycled
with a constant pedal frequency of 70 rpm. Depend-

ing on the experimental condition and the individual

result of the fitness test, the brake was regulated at 75%
(medium load) or 120% (high load) of the power output
that corresponded to the individual anaerobic threshold
assessed in the fitness test. When the pedal frequency
fell below 65 or surpassed 75 rpm for more than 10 s,
the participant was signaled to pay attention to the pedal
frequency. This particular signal was given only five
times. The participants heart rate was also monitored
continuously during the experiment. While cycling,
the participant heard 60 pairs of word stimuli, decided
whether each pair consisted of identical stimuli, and then
responded by pressing one of two buttons (identical vs.
not identical) with the right thumb. At the same time, the
participant pressed a button with the left thumb every
2 s. The participant was not allowed to wear a watch
during the experiment, and there was no clock in sight.
After the experimental tasks were completed, a 2-min
cool-down phase followed. Then the participant was
debriefed and paid.
The first and the second sessions of each participant were run at approximately the same time of the
dayeither in the morning (not before 9 a.m.) or in the
afternoon (not before 2 p.m.). The time of testing was
counterbalanced across the four experimental conditions.

Results
Preliminary Analyses
We first analyzed the control variables for differences
between the experimental groups. In all analyses, effects
with p < .05 were evaluated as statistically significant
and those with p .10 as marginally significant. The
experimental groups did not differ on verbal ability, and
no interactions between verbal ability and the independent variables were found (all F values < 1). Participants
trained in playing a musical instrument were slightly (but
nonsignificantly) overrepresented in the group that was
presented with the artificially sounding word stimuli,
2(1) = .18, p = .67. No differences, however, were found
between participants with and without musical training
on the interval production task performance, F < 1. In
addition, no significant mean differences were found on
the maximum load reached in the fitness test between the
experimental groups, F(1,56) = 1.03, p = .39. Based on
these results, we excluded verbal ability, experience in
music, and fitness as covariates. Performance in the word
comparison task did not differ between pairs consisting
of identical and different words, F(1,59) = 2.00, p = .16.
Thus, in all analyses this factor was excluded.
We then checked whether the manipulation of the
physical load levels was effective. The heart rate (beats
per minute) at the end of the experimental session in the
medium-load condition, M = 124, SD = 19.1, was lower
than in the high-load condition, M = 169, SD = 18.9,
F(1,56) = 80.10, p < .001, 2p = .59. The heart rate did
not covary with cognitive load, F < 1, or combinations
of cognitive and physical load, F(1,56) = 1.42, p = .238.

74Dutke et al.

Primary Task Performance

Relation Between Response Time and Accuracy. To

Correct Judgments. The number of correct judgments

per person was subjected to a 2 (cognitive load: lower

= naturally sounding stimuli vs. higher = artificially
sounding stimuli) 2 (physical load: medium = 75%
vs. high = 120% of the anaerobic threshold) betweensubjects factorial ANOVA. Neither of these factors had
an effect on the number of correct judgments and no
interaction was found (all three F values < 1; see Table
1 for means and standard deviations). Thus, neither
cognitive nor physical load affected the number of correct
judgments in the primary task. In other words, processing
effectiveness, at the level of correct judgments, was
unaffected by increased cognitive and physical load.

Response Time. The response times for deciding on

the identity of the words were subjected to a mixed-design

ANOVA with the within-participants factor correctness
of judgment (false vs. correct) and the betweenparticipants factors cognitive load (lower vs. higher)
and physical load (medium vs. high). Only correctness
affected the response times (see Table 1 for means and
standard deviations). Correct judgments, M = 1,041 ms,
SD = 524, were processed faster than false judgments,
M = 1,695 ms, SD = 1,436, F(1,52) = 14.49, p < .001, 2p
= .26. Neither cognitive nor physical load had an effect
on response times. Thus, performance effectiveness was
unaffected at the level of correct judgments and response
times. Neglecting the within-participants factor yielded
the same pattern of results: The manipulation of physical
and cognitive load did not affect the response time in the
primary cognitive task.

investigate whether a speed-accuracy trade-off has

occurred, we calculated the correlation between the
number of correct judgments and the mean response time
for correct judgments in the primary task. A marginally
significant negative correlation, r(58) = .24, p = .06, was
found. This correlation was also marginally significant
in the subsample working under medium physical load,
r(28) = .33, p = .07, but not significant for participants
under high physical load, r(28) = .16, p = .39. Likewise,
this correlation was significant in the subsample with
lower cognitive load, r(28) = .41, p = .03, but not in the
subsample working under higher cognitive load, r(28) =
.15, p = .43. Thus, no speed-accuracy trade-offs were
detected, because the number of correct judgments
and the response times either were unrelated or higher
numbers of correct judgments were associated with lower
response times.

Secondary Task Performance

The absolute interval production error was subjected to a
mixed-design ANOVA with the within-participants factor
correctness of the judgment in the primary task (false
vs. correct judgments) and the between-participants factors cognitive load (lower vs. higher) and physical load
(medium vs. high). The analysis yielded a main effect of
the within-participants factor, F(1,52) = 6.77, p = .012,
2p = .12, showing that the interval production error was
higher in trials with a false judgment than in trials with
a correct judgment (see Table 1 for means and standard
deviations). However, this difference did not interact

Table 1 Performance in the Primary and Secondary Cognitive Task,

Means (SD)
Physical Load
Medium
Dependent Variable
Number of correct responses
Response time

Interval production error

Judgment

Lower
55.1

High
Cognitive Load
Higher
Lower
Higher
51.5
51.4
50.3

(9.9)

(14.2)

(8.9)

(10.3)

Correct

834
(284)

983
(418)

1075
(461)

1262
(762)

Incorrect

1097
(1661)

2030
(1245)

1721
(1284)

1987
(1474)

Correct

425
(156)

715
(413)

798
(552)

716
(220)

Incorrect

567
(435)

1020
(865)

1187
(1097)

765
(342)

Note. The maximum number of correct responses was 60 in all conditions. Response times and interval
production error were measured in ms. Judgment = correct or incorrect decision in the word comparison task
(primary cognitive task).

Acute Physical Exercise and Processing Efficiency 75

with cognitive and physical load, both F values < 1. No

significant main effects of physical and cognitive load
were found, but their interaction was significant, F(1,52)
= 5.27, p = .026, 2p = .09 (see Figure 1). Under medium
physical load, the interval production error was lower
when the cognitive load was also lower (M = 447 ms, SD
= 151) compared with when cognitive load was higher (M
= 726 ms, SD = 443, t[28] = 2.30, p = .029). However,
the interval production error did not differ between lower
and higher cognitive load when physical load was high.
Similarly, when the cognitive load was lower, the interval
production error was lower under medium physical load
(M = 447 ms, SD = 151) than under high physical load
(M = 826 ms, SD = 541, t[28] = 2.61, p = .014). In contrast, the interval production error did not differ between
medium and high physical load when cognitive load
was higher. In addition, under high physical and higher
cognitive load (M = 712 ms, SD = 194), the interval
production error was also higher than in the group with
lower cognitive and medium physical load (M = 447 ms,
SD = 151, t[28] = 4.17, p = .000). Thus, secondary task
performance under medium physical and lower cognitive
load was better than in all other conditions (see Figure
1). Neglecting the within-participants factor yielded the
same pattern of effects.

Correlations Between Primary and

Secondary Task Performance
High performance in the primary task was indicated by
high numbers of correct judgments, and high performance
in the secondary cognitive task was indicated by low
interval production errors. These two performance indicators were correlated separately in the four experimental
groups. A marginally significant negative correlation

was found in the group working under high physical

and higher cognitive load, r(13) = .44, p = .10. In this
group, a low performance in one task tended to be related
to a lower performance in the other task (note that high
performance in the secondary task is indicated by a low
interval production error). In contrast, the marginally
significant positive correlation, r(13) = .47, p = .07, in
the group with medium physical and lower cognitive load
indicated that a low performance in one task tended to be
associated with a higher performance in the other task.
Although these correlations did not significantly deviate
from zero, they significantly deviated from each other, z
= 5.25, p < .001, demonstrating that the relation between
performance in the primary and secondary task differed
between these two experimental groups. When cognitive
load was low and physical load high (or vice versa), the
correlations between performance in the primary and
secondary cognitive task did not significantly deviate
from zero (lower cognitive load and high physical load:
r[13] = .16, p = .57; higher cognitive load and medium
physical load: r[13] = .08, p = .77), and they did not
significantly deviate from the correlations in the other two
groups. This pattern of correlations indicated that in the
condition with lower cognitive and medium physical load,
resources were exchanged between primary and secondary task, whereas in the condition with higher cognitive
and high physical load, resources limited performance in
both tasks simultaneously.

Discussion
In this study, we investigated the hypothesis that acute
bouts of physical exercise might affect processing efficiency in a cognitive task to a greater extent than processing effectiveness. This hypothesis was based on the

Figure 1 Interval production error (ms) under medium and high physical and lower and higher cognitive load. *p < .05; **p < .01.

76Dutke et al.

assumption that under high physical load (or under higher

cognitive load) compensatory processing resources are
allocated to a cognitive task such that the threatening performance decrement is limited or even prevented but at
the cost of the processing resources additionally invested.
The results are consistent with this hypothesis. The
number of correct answers and response times in the
word comparison task (primary cognitive task) did not
significantly covary with cognitive or physical load. Thus,
neither increased physical load (induced by concurrent
ergometer cycling at the 120% load level) nor increased
cognitive load (induced by more artificially articulated
words) impaired performance effectiveness. At first
glance, this result seemed to indicate that the experimental manipulations had no effects on cognitive processing
in the task chosen for this experiment.
However, a different impression emerged when
performance in the secondary cognitive task (interval
production) was scrutinized. The interaction of physical and cognitive load demonstrated that only under
medium physical load the variation of cognitive processing demands made a significant difference. The
interval production error increased with increased
cognitive demands. Likewise, only when the cognitively
lower demanding task was accomplished, the interval
production error was higher under high physical load
rather than under medium physical load. Moreover, the
interval production error under higher cognitive and high
physical load was higher than under lower cognitive and
medium physical load. Thus, increased cognitive load
and increased physical load caused increased resource
consumption, although in the primary task (i.e., at the
level of performance effectiveness) no differences were
observed. According to Eysencks framework, the combination of unaffected performance effectiveness (in the
primary task) and increased resource consumption (demonstrated by decreased secondary task performance) indicates decreased processing efficiency (cf. Derakshan &
Eysenck, 2009; Eysenck & Derakshan, 2011; Eysenck et
al., 2007). This pattern is consistent with our hypothesis
that concurrent physical exercise was expected to affect
processing efficiency more than processing effectiveness.
This pattern of results can be interpreted as the
typical effect of an effort-based resource compensation mechanism (Hockey, 1996, 1997). Under medium
physical load, the resource compensation in the face of
increased cognitive load was effective in the current
study. Cognitively higher- and lower-demanding primary
tasks were mastered equally well but required different
amounts of resources (as indicated by performance in the
secondary task). Under lower cognitive load, the resource
compensation in the face of increased physical load
was also effective. Performance in the primary task did
not differ between high and medium physical loadat
the cost of secondary task performance. However, this
resource compensation mechanism only seemed to be
effective when physical or cognitive load was increased.
Coping with increased physical and increased cognitive
load absorbed resources to an extent that limited the

effectiveness of the effort-based compensatory mechanisms.

The pattern of correlations between performance
in the primary and secondary task was consistent with
this explanation. The correlations significantly differed
between the groups with lower cognitive / medium physical load and higher cognitive / high physical load. When
physical load was medium and cognitive load was lower,
the correlation indicated that a low performance in one
task tended to be associated with a high performance in
the other task. Based on individually different capacitydemand relations, the primary task required individually
different amounts of resources such that more or less
resources were left for the secondary task. This free
and adaptive exchange of resources may be the effect of
the automatic control loop postulated by Hockey (1996,
1997). However, if cognitive and physical load were
higher, the relation between performance in the primary
and secondary cognitive task reversed. Low performance
in one task tended to be related to a low performance
in the other task. This reversal might indicate that the
processing resources in this condition were so scarce that
the lack of resources limited performance in both tasks.
Inspection of the mean response times in the primary
task support this interpretation. Although cognitive and
physical load had no significant effects on the response
time, the longest response time was observed in the group
with high physical and higher cognitive load (Table 1).
This result can be interpreted as an indication that the
additional resources for completing the more strenuous
cognitive task under highly demanding exercise had in
addition to the secondary task also affected performance
in the primary task, albeit not to the extent of reaching
the conventional level of significance. This could explain
why the performance of the high/high group in the
secondary task remained at the level of the groups in
which only physical or cognitive load were increased.
The results of the current study have at least two
consequences for research on acute physical exercise
effects on cognitive performance. First, our results
demonstrate that a lack of physical exercise effects on
performance in a cognitive task does not necessarily
indicate that the functioning of the cognitive system is
unaffected by physical exercise. Maybe performance
under physical load can only be maintained by increased
resource consumption, that is, at the cost of processing efficiency. In some contexts, decreased efficiency
could be neglected, for example, when the duration of
concurrent physical load is short or when performance
in a cognitive task is not critical. However, neglecting
decreased processing efficiency in other contexts could
have severe consequences. For example, increased compensatory resource consumption over longer periods
has been shown to lead to unreliable performance (e.g.,
Szalma & Hancock, 2011). Second, our results suggest
that a systematic underestimation of physical exercise
effects on cognitive performance can lead to inadequate
theoretical conclusions. For example, in studies examining the neurophysiological links between physical acti-

Acute Physical Exercise and Processing Efficiency 77

vation and cognition (cf. reviews by Chang et al., 2012;

Lambourne & Tomporowski, 2010; Tomporowski et al.,
2011), performance in cognitive tasks is regularly used as
a measure for the association between the physical state
of the organism and its cognitive functioning. However,
our results demonstrate that processing effectiveness may
be the less sensitive indicator to assess such associations
than processing efficiency.
Our results are also consistent with the RAH model
of acute exercise (Dietrich & Audiffren, 2011). This
model predicts that during exercise reticular-activating
systems are stimulated (as movement coordination
requires much implicit information processing) while
prefrontal systems are inhibited (to support resource
allocation to the implicit system). Our primary cognitive
task required controlled working memory and attentional
processes (explicit cognitive processing in Dietrich and
Audiffrens terminology). In this context, the RAH model
would predict exercise to impair cognitive performance.
The processing efficiency theory, however, additionally
assumes that performance effectiveness is not necessarily impaired, but when effort-related compensatory
resource allocations are employed processing efficiency
decreases, whereas performance effectiveness can be
held constant. Whether this resource allocation policy
is successful in the sense that primary task performance
can be held constant at the cost of decreasing processing
efficiency clearly depends on the difficulty of the primary
task. We chose a moderately difficult task so that even
in the increased cognitive load condition participants
performance limits were not challenged. Under these
conditions, controlled and effort-related compensatory
processes were suitable to stabilize primary task performance. However, holding primary task performance
constant required more resources when, at the same
time, physical exercise down regulated explicit cognitive
processing in prefrontal regions, as assumed by the RAH
model. In this respect, the RAH model and the processing
efficiency theory complement each other.
In the present experiment, the combination of heavy
exercise and a moderately difficult prefrontal primary
task led to a moderate exercise-induced decrease of
processing efficiency. However, it should be noted that
the method demonstrated in our experiment would also
be suitable to indicate hidden resource gains when
other task-exercise combinations are chosen. In this
case, unchanged primary task performance could be
accompanied by increased secondary task performance,
which would indicate that exercise increases resource
efficiency, even when performance effectiveness in the
primary task does not benefit from these gains. Thus,
we assume that dual-task techniques might contribute to
refining the analysis of the exercise-cognition relation.
Although the results are consistent with our hypothesis, some limitations of the experimental approach and
perspectives on future research should be considered.
The choice of the physical exercise levels warrant discussion. In many studies, conditions of physical activity
were contrasted with conditions of rest or physically

nondemanding activities (see for example, studies

reviewed in McMorris et al., 2011). In the current study,
we compared exercise between a medium and a high
level of physical load. We assumed this manipulation to
be a more conservative approach, because it contrasted
different degrees of physical load but not completely different physiological states such as load and rest, which
could be controlled by qualitatively different processes.
However, further studies could test whether choosing a
greater difference than 75% and 120% of the individual
anaerobic threshold would lead to greater effect sizes and
include a rest control condition to provide a baseline that
could facilitate the interpretation of exercise effects. For
future studies it would also be useful to assess more process measures about the physiological regulation during
exercise. Although we fixed the workload during exercise,
the internal physiological states may substantially vary
over time (e.g., Chmura, Krysztofiak, Ziemba, Nazar, &
Kaciuba-Uscilko, 1997), and some of these changes might
also be related to cognitive regulation.
Given that none of the control variables indicated
differences between the experimental groups, we are
quite sure that the results are not merely a product of
a priori group differences. Nevertheless, such an interpretation cannot strictly be ruled out. Future studies on
processing efficiency under physical exercise should
also employ within-participants designs to better control
for individual differences. In this first exploration of
our hypothesis, however, we chose to not use a within
design, because completely controlling for the potential
sequence effects among four different load conditions
would have produced 24 sequence conditions. Systematically evaluating their impact would have required an
unrealistically large N.
Another limitation to consider is the narrowed
scope of cognitive tasks used in the study. A variety of
cognitive tasks were used in the reviewed studies, and
some authors of broad meta-analytical studies claimed to
investigate the relationship between physical exercise and
cognitive performance in general. In contrast, the claim
of our experimental demonstration is more modest. We
demonstrated that concurrent physical exercise can affect
processing efficiency to a greater extent than processing
effectiveness using just one type of primary and secondary task. The selection of these tasks was based on the
knowledge that (a) the primary task shared important
characteristics with tasks frequently used in research on
physical exercise effects and on processing efficiency and
(b) the secondary task was sensitive to resource requirements of the primary task. Thus, we are confident that
the requirements of the tasks used are typical for many
tasks used in exercise-cognition research. Nevertheless,
we acknowledge that our results only represent a single
example of how physical exercise can affect processing
efficiency, albeit a paradigmatic example. However, the
expectation that the required processing resources can be
exchanged among the tasks employed relies on the theoretical assumption that attentional and working memory
capacity represents a common, unspecific resource that

78Dutke et al.

can be shared by qualitatively different processes (e.g.,

Conway & Engle, 1996; Barrett, Tugade, & Engle, 2004).
Whether this assumption is also valid for other combinations of task requirements remains to be explored. If the
same pattern of results is found using other tasks, then
the results would corroborate the general conclusion from
our observation that physical exercise affects processing
efficiency more than processing effectiveness.
Finally, the current study examined the effects of
acute exercise on concurrent cognitive performance in
a homogeneous sample (relatively fit young and healthy
adults). However, some meta-analyses indicated that the
participants fitness level can moderate acute exercise
effects. Chang et al. (2012), for example, revealed that
acute exercise had positive effects in highly fit participants but negative effects in less fit participants when
cognitive performance was assessed during exercise.
According to the RAH model (Dietrich & Audiffren,
2011), exercise might cause a stronger stimulation of the
reticular-activating system and thus a stronger inhibition
of the prefrontal system in less fit participants. Consequently, the acute exercise leads to negative effects in less
fit participants and positive effects in fitter participants.
According to the processing efficiency theory (Eysenck
& Derakshan, 2011), differential exercise-related effects
between more or less fit participants need not necessarily occur at the level of performance effectiveness.
When compensatory resource allocation processes are
successful, differences may only be found on the level
of processing efficiency. Thus, future studies including
fitness as a moderator of the effects of acute exercise on
concurrent cognitive performance in a dual task design
may contribute to further develop the understanding of
acute exercise effects on processing effectiveness and
processing efficiency.

Notes
1. In the pilot study, intrusions of previously presented numbers occurred, which suggested that inhibiting already identified
numbers during the processing of the next pair of words was
also a task requirement.
2. In the pilot study, most of the participants (86%) reported
after 2 min that they had understood the tasks and would like to
start the experimental session. After 3 min, all pilot participants
stated that they did not need any further practice.

Acknowledgments
We thank Stefan Rubly for conducting the experiment and
preparing the data analyses, Gza Nmeth and Blint Tth
for providing the word stimuli, and Holger Klus for helping
to set up the ergometer equipment. This research was supported by grants to Stephan Dutke and Thomas Jaitner by
the Ambient Intelligence Research Centre at the University
of Kaiserslautern.

References
Abernethy, B. (1988). Dual-task methodology and motor
skills research: Some applications and methodological
constraints. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 14,
101132.
Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A.
(2001). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000R. Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. [Intelligence structure test].
Audiffren, M. (2009). Acute exercise and psychological functions: A cognitive-energetic approach. In T. McMorris,
P.D. Tomporowski, & M. Audiffren (Eds.), Exercise and
Cognitive Function (pp. 339). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Barenberg, J., Berse, T., & Dutke, S. (2011). Executive functions in learning processes. Do they benefit from physical activity? Educational Research Review, 6, 208222.
doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.04.002
Barrett, L.F., Tugade, M.M., & Engle, R.W. (2004). Individual
differences in working memory capacity and dual-process
theories of the mind. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 553
573. PubMed doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.4.553
Chang, Y.K., Labban, J.D., Gapin, J.I., & Etnier, J.L. (2012).
The effects of acute exercise on cognitive performance:
A meta-analysis. Brain Research, 1453, 87101. PubMed
doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2012.02.068
Chmura, J., Krysztofiak, H., Ziemba, A.W., Nazar, K., &
Kaciuba-Uscilko, H. (1997). Psychomotor performance
during prolonged exercise above and below the blood
lactate threshold. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol, 77,
7780. PubMed doi:10.1007/s004210050303
Conconi, F., Ferrari, M., Ziglio, P.G., Droghetti, P., & Codeca,
L. (1982). Determination of the anaerobic threshold by
a noninvasive field test in runners. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 52, 869873. PubMed
Conconi, F., Grazzi, G., Casoni, I., Guglielmini, C., Borsetto,
C., Ballarin, E., . . . Manfedini, F. (1996). The Conconi
test: Methodology after 12 years of application. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 17, 509519. PubMed
doi:10.1055/s-2007-972887
Conway, A.R.A., & Engle, R.W. (1996). Individual differences
in working memory capacity: More evidence for a general
capacity theory. Memory (Hove, England), 4, 577590.
PubMed doi:10.1080/741940997
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M.W. (2009). Anxiety, processing
efficiency, and cognitive performance: New developments
from attentional control theory. European Psychologist,
14, 168176. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14.2.168
Dietrich, A., & Audiffren, M. (2011). The reticular-activating
hypofrontality (RAH) model of acute exercise. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 13051325
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.02.001
Dietrich, A., & Sparling, P.B. (2004). Endurance exercise
selectively impairs prefrontal-dependent cognition.
Brain and Cognition, 55, 516524. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
bandc.2004.03.002
Eysenck, M.W. (1979). Anxiety, learning, and memory: A
reconceptualization. Journal of Research in Personality,
13, 363385. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(79)90001-1

Acute Physical Exercise and Processing Efficiency 79

Eysenck, M.W. (1996). Anxiety, processing efficiency theory,

and performance. In W. Battmann & S. Dutke (Eds.), Processes of the molar regulation of behavior (pp. 91104).
Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
Eysenck, M.W., & Calvo, M.G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and
Emotion, 6, 409434. doi:10.1080/02699939208409696
Eysenck, M.W., & Derakshan, N. (2011). New perspectives
in attentional control theory. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 955960. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.019
Eysenck, M.W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. (2007).
Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control
theory. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 7, 336353. PubMed
doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
Field, D.T., & Groeger, J.A. (2004). Temporal interval production and short-term memory. Perception & Psychophysics,
66, 808819. PubMed doi:10.3758/BF03194975
Fortin, C., & Breton, R. (1995). Temporal interval production
and processing in working memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 203215. PubMed doi:10.3758/BF03206507
Grazzi, G., Alifieri, N., Borsetto, C., Casoni, I., Manfredini,
F., Mazzoni, G., & Conconi, F. (1999). The power output/
heart rate relationship in cycling: Test standardization
and repeatability. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise, 31, 14781483. PubMed doi:10.1097/00005768199910000-00019
Hattori, S., Naoi, M., & Nishino, H. (1994). Striatal dopamine
turnover during treadmill running in the rat: Relation to
the speed of running. Brain Research Bulletin, 35, 4149
10. PubMed doi:10.1016/0361-9230(94)90214-3
Hockey, G.R.J. (1996). Energetical-control processes in the
regulation of human performance. In W. Battmann &
S. Dutke (Eds.), Processes of the molar regulation of
behavior (pp. 271287). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
Hockey, G.R.J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation
of human performance under stress and high workload: A
cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology,
45, 7393. PubMed doi:10.1016/S0301-0511(96)05223-4
Huertas, F., Zahonero, J., Sanabria, D., & Lupianez, J. (2011).
Functioning of the attentional networks a rest vs. during
acute bouts of aerobic exercise. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 649665. PubMed
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Lambourne, K., & Tomporowski, P. (2010). The effect of
exercise-induced arousal on cognitive task performance:
A meta-regression analysis. Brain Research, 1341, 1224.
PubMed doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.091
Luce, P.A., Feustel, T.C., & Pisoni, D.B. (1983). Capacity
demands in short-term memory for synthetic and natural
speech. Human Factors, 25, 1732. PubMed
McMorris, T., Sproule, J., Turner, A., & Hale, B.J. (2011). Acute,
intermediate intensity exercise, and speed and accuracy in
working memory tasks: A meta-analytical comparison of
effects. Physiology & Behavior, 102, 421428. PubMed
doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.12.007
Meeusen, R., & De Meirleir, K. (1995). Exercise and brain
neurotransmission. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.),

20, 160188. PubMed doi:10.2165/00007256-19952003000004

Noyes, J.M., Hellier, E., & Edworthy, J. (2006). Speech warnings: A review. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science,
7, 551571. doi:10.1080/14639220600731123
Ogden, R.S., Salominaite, E., Jones, L.A., Fisk, J.E., & Montgomery, C. (2011). The role of executive functions in
human prospective interval timing. Acta Psychologica,
137, 352358. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.04.004
Rasmussen, P., Brassard, P., Adser, H., Pedersen, M.V., Leick,
L., Hart, E., . . . Pilegaard, H. (2009). Evidence for a
release of brain-derived neurotrophic factor from the brain
during exercise. Experimental Physiology, 94, 10621069.
PubMed doi:10.1113/expphysiol.2009.048512
Rooks, C.R., Thom, N.J., McCully, K.K., & Dishman, R.K.
(2010). Effects of incremental exercise on cerebral oxygenation measured by near-infrared spectroscopy: A systematic review. Progress in Neurobiology, 92, 134150.
PubMed doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2010.06.002
Sanders, A.F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human
performance. Acta Psychologica, 53, 6197. PubMed
doi:10.1016/0001-6918(83)90016-1
Szalma, J.L., & Hancock, P.A. (2011). Noise effects on human
performance: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychological
Bulletin, 137, 682707. PubMed doi:10.1037/a0023987
Shinohara, K. (1999). Resource for temporal information processing in interval production. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 88, 917928. PubMed doi:10.2466/
pms.1999.88.3.917
Tashiro, M., Itoh, M., Fujimoto, T., Ota, H., Kubota, K., Higuchi, M., . . . Sasaki, H. (2001). 18F-FDG PET mapping
of regional brain activity in runners. J Sports Med Phys
Fitness, 41, 1117. PubMed
Tomporowski, P.D. (2003). Effects of acute bouts of exercise
on cognition. Acta Psychologica, 112, 297324. PubMed
doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00134-8
Tomporowski, P.D., Lambourne, K., & Okumura, M.S. (2011).
Physical activity interventions and childrens mental function: An introduction and overview. Preventive Medicine,
52 (Suppl.), S3S9 doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.028
Waterworth, J.A., & Thomas, C.M.Borman, L., & Curtis, B.
(Eds.). (1985). Why is synthetic speech harder to remember than natural speech? In L. Borman & B. Curtis (Eds.)
Proceedings of the ACM CHI 85 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 1418, 1985, San Francisco, California. pp. 201206. doi:10.1145/317456.317493
Winter, B., Breitenstein, C., Mooren, F.C., Voelker, K., Fobker,
M., Lechtermann, A., . . . Knecht, S. (2007). High impact
running improves learning. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 87, 597609. PubMed doi:10.1016/j.
nlm.2006.11.003
Zakay, D. (1990). The evasive art of subjective time measurement: Some methodological dilemmas. In R.A. Block
(Ed.), Cognitive models of psychological time (pp. 5984).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Manuscript submitted: February 26, 2013
Revision accepted: October 27, 2013

Copyright of Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology is the property of Human Kinetics
Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.