Cardiovascular exercise and motor learning in non-disabled individuals: A systematic review with a behavioral emphasis

Bonuzzi, Giordano Marcio Gatinho; Torriani-Pasin, Camila

doi:10.1590/S1980-65742022005221

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Motriz: Revista de Educação Física

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Mini-review/Systematic review • Motriz: rev. educ. fis. 28 • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1980-65742022005221 copy

Cardiovascular exercise and motor learning in non-disabled individuals: A systematic review with a behavioral emphasis

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Aim:

This systematic review aimed to investigate the acute effects of cardiovascular exercise on motor learning of non-disabled individuals.

Methods:

Forty studies were identified through database searching (PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Scielo, and PUBMED). The studies demonstrated heterogeneity and were classified into two categories to guide the analyses: (1) – studies that investigated the effects of exercise-induced fatigue during practice on the performance in the retention test; (2) – studies that verified the acute impact of the cardiovascular exercise in close temporal proximity to the task practice on motor learning.

Results:

The studies demonstrated that (1) - the practice under fatigue conditions did not impair motor learning and that (2) – the cardiovascular exercise bout performed in close temporal proximity to task practice enhances the motor learning processes.

Conclusion:

Cardiovascular exercise enhances motor learning processes; however, these priming effects are dependents on the timing between practice and exercise, type of exercise, and task characteristics.

Keywords
aerobic exercise; motor learning; cardiovascular exercise; priming

Reference/Methodological Rigor	Participants	Motor Task	Methodology	Exercise Parameters	Findings
Benson (1968) PEDro = 4 2B* Fatigue study	Forty-one young adults.	Jumping task and Juggle task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Jumping practice + Exercise + Juggle practice Group; and Juggle practice + Exercise + Jumping practice Group. Intervention: 11 practice sessions in 6 weeks. Each practice session was composed of 3 min of juggling and 1 serie of 32 hopping and stepping movements. Retention test after 2 weeks.	Type: Stationary bike. Intensity: 180 bpm. Volume: 5-6 min. Cadence: 20 km/h, Condition: Continuous.	The learning of the speed component in the jumping task was impaired in the fatigue state. Fatigue effects improved the learning of the accuracy component of the jumping task. The fatigue effect improved juggle learning.
Schmidt (1969) PEDro = 4 2B* Fatigue study	Forty-seven young adults.	Bachman Ladder Climb.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Mild exercise and practice Group, Moderate exercise and practice group, and vowel-canceling task + practice group. Intervention: 10 trials of 30-s trials for practice. In the retention test was provided 4 blocks of 30 trials (without exercise). The exercise groups performed exercise before and during the intertrial intervals.	Type: Stationary bike. Intensity: 1200 kg m/min (for moderate exercise group) and 750 kg m/min (for mild exercise group). Volume: 2 min. Cadence: Not reported. Condition: Continuous.	The exercise-induced fatigue decremented motor performance during the practice. However, fatigue did not influence motor learning.
Carron & Ferchuk (1971) PEDro = 5 2B* Fatigue study	Forty young adults.	Balance stabilometer Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice Group, and Exercise before and interposed in the practice Group. Intervention: Practice - 24 trials (20 s each) divided in 2 days (48 h between them). The 48-h retention test had 6 trials without exercise.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 180 bpm, Volume: 10 min before practice, and 2 min among practice blocks. Cadence: Not reported. Condition: Continuous.	The fatigue was detrimental to performance during practice and learning.
Godwin & Schmidt (1971) PEDro = 4 2A Fatigue study	Sixty-four young adults.	Sigma task.	Experimental design: Parallel Group. Groups: Just practice group, and Exercise before and interposed in the practice Group. Intervention: The practice was composed of 20 trials, and the 72-h retention test had 10 trials without exercise.	Type: Upper body ergometer. Intensity: 70.2 kg m/min. Volume: 2 min before practice, and 15 s among trials. Cadence: 60 rpm. Condition: Continuous.	The fatigue impacts motor performance negatively during practice. Both groups demonstrated retention without significant difference between them.
Michael Pack, Cotten, & Biasiotto (1974) PEDro = 5 2A Fatigue study	Forty-eight young adults.	Bachman Ladder Climb.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Just practice Group, practice interposed by exercise at 120 bpm Group, practice interposed by exercise at 150 bpm Group and practice interposed by exercise 180 bpm Group. Intervention: The practice had 20 blocks of 5 trials; each practice block was interposed by exercise (or rest). A 24-h retention test composed of 20 blocks was run (without exercise).	Type: Treadmill. Intensity: 120 bpm, 150 bpm, or 180 bpm. Volume: 3 min interposed in each practice block. Condition: Continuous.	The two more vigorous fatigue conditions had a detrimental effect during the practice. However, there were no differences among the groups in the retention test.
Cochran (1975) PEDro = 3 2B Fatigue study	Thirty-five young adults.	Balance stabilometer Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Just practice Group, and Exercise before and between practice trials Group. The practice had 2 trials of 3-min each/ per week, for 4 weeks. In week 5 was developed the retention test without exercise.	Type: Stationary bike. Intensity: 600 kg m/ min. Volume: 8 min before trial 1, and 3 min between trials 1 and 2. Cadence: 50 rpm. Condition: Continuous.	The exercise group demonstrated better motor performance and learning.
Williams & Singer (1975) PEDro = 4 2A Fatigue study	Forty-eight young adults.	Pursuit-rotor tracking task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Just practice group, low-intensity exercise among practice trials Group, moderate-intensity exercise among practice trials Group, and high-intensity exercise among practice trials Group. Intervention: Practice was composed of 10 trials/ 20 s each. The 48-h retention also had 10 trials, without exercise.	Type: Upper body ergometer. Intensity: 90, 180, and 270 kg m/min; for low, medium and high fatiguing groups, respectively. Volume: 15 s interposed in each practice trial. Condition: Continuous.	All groups improved their performance between practice and retention test, without a significant difference between them.
Poolton et al. (2007) PEDro = 5 2A Fatigue study	Forty-six young adults.	Rugby pass.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Implicit Learning Group and Explicit Learning Group. Intervention: 10 blocks of 10 trials each. A Wingate test was run before practice. A 1-year retention test of 1 block of 10 trials was performed.	Type: Stationary bike, Protocol: Wingate test.	The implicit group demonstrated better motor performance. Both groups demonstrated retention after one year, without difference between them.
Masters et al. (2008) PEDro = 4 2B* Fatigue study	Forty-one young adults.	Rugby pass.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Implicit Learning Group and Explicit Learning Group. Intervention: 10 blocks of 10 trials each. After 15 min, a retention test and a dual-task test. Following, exercise was performed. Then, retention tests were replied.	Type: Treadmill. Protocol: VO2_max. Running test on a treadmill (voluntary exhaustion).	The implicit group demonstrated stable learning under aerobic fatigue, which the explicit learning group did not show.
Roig et al. (2012) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Forty-eight young adults.	Visuomotor Accuracy Tracking Task.	Experimental Desing: Parallel Group. Groups: Exercise Before Practice Group, Exercise After Practice Group, Just Practice Group. Intervention: 3 blocks of 5 min of practice. Retention test of 5 min of practice after 1 h, 24 h, and 7 days to the end of practice.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: ≥10 mmol/l lactate for high-intensity blocks, 50 W for low-intensity blocks, Cadence: 70 rpm, Volume: 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	The exercise groups demonstrated better retention than the Just Practice Group. Yet, Exercise Group demonstrated better long-term retention than Before Exercise Group.
Mang et al. (2014) PEDro = 6 1A Non-fatigue study	Sixteen young adults.	Visuomotor Accuracy Tracking Task.	Experimental Design: Cross-Over. Condition 1: Rest + Practice and a 24-h retention test. Condition 2: Exercise + Practice and a 24-h retention test. Blocks of 10 trials composed the practice. The 24-h retention test has 1 block of 10 trials. Washout: 2 weeks.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 90% W_máx for high-intensity blocks, 50 W for low-intensity blocks, Cadence: > 70 rpm, Volume: 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	There was retention only when the practice was preceded by aerobic exercise. The retention level correlated with the exercise-induced long-term potentiation.
Skriver et al. (2014) PEDro = 6 1A Non-fatigue study	Thirty-two young adults.	Visuomotor Accuracy Tracking Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Exercise Before Practice Group, and Just Practice Group. Intervention: Pre-test with 10 trials, practice with 3 blocks of 5 min each, retention tests of 5 min were run after 1 h, 24 h, and 7 days after the end of practice. Across the practice were collected biomarkers samples.	The same exercise parameters of Roig et al. (2012).	Cardiovascular exercise stimulated better long-term retention if compared to rest condition.
Chartrand et al. (2015) PEDro = 1A Non-fatigue study	Fifty-two young adults.	Laparoscopic surgery simulator tasks.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + Exercise Group, Just Practice Group. Intervention: The practice was composed of 10 min of PT, 10 min of PC, and 15 min of IS. The participants were scored in the 3 tasks by a proctor in the pre-test and during the 2-months retention test.	Type: Treadmill. Intensity: 60% VO2_max. Volume: 20 min.	There was no exercise effect on motor learning.
Statton et al. (2015) Experiment 1 PEDro = 5 2B* Non-fatigue study	Twenty-four young adults.	Sequential Visual Isometric Pinch Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Running Immediately Before Practice Group, Running + 1-h rest + Practice Group, and Walking + Practice Group. Intervention: Pre-test with 30 trials, practice composed of 4 blocks of 30 trials each.	Type: Treadmill, Intensity: From 65 to 80% HR_max, Volume: 30 min, Condition: Continuous.	All groups improved motor performance across the practice. However, the Exercise Immediately Before Practice demonstrated better motor performance than the other groups.
Statton et al. (2015) Experiment 2 PEDro = 5 2B* Non-fatigue study	Twenty young adults.	Sequential Visual Isometric Pinch Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Running Before Practice Group, and Walking Before Practice Group. Intervention: 3 days of practice, each day composed of 4 blocks of 30 trials each, a retention test was run in the fourth day composed of 4 blocks of 30 trials each.	Type: Treadmill, Intensity: From 65% to 80% HR_max, Volume: 30 min, Condition: Continuous.	The running group demonstrated better motor performance across the practice. However, there was no significant difference between groups in the retention test.
Rhee et al. (2016) PEDro = 5 2B* Non-fatigue study	Sixty young adults.	Motor sequence task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice A + 24 h test A Group; Practice A + Immediate test A Group; Practice A + Practice B + 24 h Test A Group; Practice A + Exercise + Practice B + 24 h Test A Group; Practice A + 2 h rest + Exercise + Practice B + 24 h test A Group. Intervention: 30 trials of 30 s, each composed practice. The tests were composed of 1 trial of 30 s.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 80% and 100% HR_max. Volume: 18 min (80% HR_max) and 3 min (100% HR_max), Cadence: 70 rpm, Condition: Continuous.	Cardiovascular exercise induced better retention and decrease the retroactive interference of practice B. However, this effect only was reported when the cardiovascular exercise was performed in a temporal close to practice A.
Snow et al. (2016) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Sixteen young adults.	Visuomotor Accuracy Tracking Task.	Experimental Design: Cross-Over. Condition 1: Rest + Practice and a 24 h retention test. Condition 2: Exercise + Practice and a 24 h retention test. Intervention: 2 blocks of 5 min each. The retention test has 1 block of 5 min. Washout: ≥ 2 weeks.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 60% VO2_peak. Volume: 30 min, Cadence: from 70 to 90 rpm, Condition: Continuous.	Cardiovascular exercise promoted better spatial accuracy during practice. There were no differences between the conditions (cardiovascular or rest) in the retention test; both demonstrated motor learning.
Thomas, Beck, et al. (2016) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Forty-eight young adults.	Visuomotor Accuracy Tracking Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + 20 min of rest + exercise Group; Practice + 1 h of rest + exercise Group; Practice + 2 h of rest + exercise Group; and Just Practice Group. Intervention: 5 blocks of 4 min each of practice. Retention tests were performed after 1 day and 1 week to the end of practice.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 90% W_max during high-intensity blocks, 60% W_max during low-intensity blocks. Cadence: 80 rpm, Volume: 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between, Condition: HIIT.	Cardiovascular exercise performed in a temporal close to the practice promoted better retention than other conditions.
Thomas, Johnsen, et al., (2016) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Thirty-six young adults.	Visuomotor Accuracy Tracking Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + High-intensity Exercise Group; Practice +Low-intensity Exercise Group; and Just Practice Group. Intervention: 5 blocks of 4 min each of practice. Retention tests were performed after 1 day and 1 week to the end of practice.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: (high/low intensity groups): 90% / 45% W_max during high-intensity blocks, 60% / 25% W_max during low-intensity blocks. Cadence: ≥ 80 rpm, Volume: 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	The high-intensity exercise group demonstrated better motor performance and learning than the other groups.
Ostadan et al. (2016) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Forty-eight young adults.	Serial Reaction Time Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + Exercise Group; Practice + Rest Group. Intervention: Pre-test with 15 trials, practice of 25 trials, post-test of 15 trials, and an 8-h retention test composed of 5 trials.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 85-90% VO2_peak during high-intensity blocks, 25% W_max during low-intensity blocks. Cadence: 70 rpm, Volume: Total volume 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	Both groups demonstrated offline learning. There was no significant difference between groups. The cortical excitability was associated with better motor performance for the Exercise Group.
Mang et al. (2016) PEDro = 6 1A Non-fatigue study	Sixteen young adults.	Serial Targeting Task.	Experimental Design: Cross-Over. Condition 1: Rest + Practice and a 24-h retention test. Condition 2: Exercise + Practice and a 24-h retention test. 3 blocks of 15 trials composed the practice. The retention test has 1 block of 15 trials. Washout: ≥ 2 weeks.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 90% VO2_peak during high-intensity blocks, 50 W during low-intensity blocks. Cadence: 70 rpm, Volume: 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	There was no significant difference between groups across the practice. However, in the retention test, the cardiovascular condition induced better relearning.
Lauber, Franke, Taube, & Gollhofer (2017) PEDro = 6 1A Non-fatigue study	Thirty young adults.	Ballistic task and Tracking accuracy task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Ballistic practice + Tracking practice + HIIT Group; Ballistic practice + HIIT + Tracking practice Group; and Ballistic practice + rest + Tracking practice Group. Intervention: Pre-test in the ballistic task for both upper limbs (5 trials each), after practicing in ballistic task with the dominant hand (3 blocks/ 15 trials). The practice of the tracking accuracy task had 60 trials. After practice and after 24 h were performed a post-test and a retention test identical to the pre-test.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 75% VO2_peak during high-intensity blocks, 50 W during low-intensity blocks. Cadence: 75 rpm, Volume: 4 x 4 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 4 x 4 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	The HIIT between two motor skills induced less interference on the learning of the ballistic task (in both upper limbs). When the HIIT was performed after the interfering motor task (accuracy task), there was harmful interference in the learning of the ballistic task; similar findings were found in the rest group.
Thomas et al. (2017) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Forty young adults.	Visuomotor Accuracy Tracking Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + Strength training Group; Practice + Circuit training Group; Practice + Hockey Group; Just Practice Group. Intervention: Pre-test with 2 blocks of 16 trials. Practice with 3 blocks of 32 trials, and retention tests with blocks of 16 trials after 1 h and 1 day from the end to the practice.	The exercise was relative to the type of intervention.	The exercise groups demonstrated better retention, independently of the exercise type.
Helm et al. (2017) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Fifty-four young adults.	Split-belt locomotor skill.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Exercise + Practice Group; Just Practice Group. Intervention: Pre-test with 2 min with symmetric conditions, the practice was composed of 15 min in asymmetric conditions (3:1), and the 24-h retention test composed of 15 min in asymmetric conditions (3:1).	Type: Upper body ergometer, Intensity: ≥ 90% HR_max for high-intensity blocks; 50% of the load for low-intensity block. Volume: 2 x 1 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 2 x 1 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	Both groups demonstrated adaptation improvement across practice and maintained it in the retention test. There was no significant difference between them.
Ferrer-Uris et al. (2017) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Twenty-nine young adults.	Rotational visuomotor adaptation task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Exercise + Practice Group; Practice + Exercise Group and Just practice Group. Intervention: 20 trials for familiarization, 104 trials for baseline, 312 trials for adaptation practice (60° clockwise rotational sets), and retention tests after 1 h, 1 day, and 7 days.	Type: Running, Intensity: 85% VO2_max during high-intensity blocks, 60% VO2_max during low-intensity blocks. Volume: 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	There was no exercise effect on practice. The exercise groups were better than the control group in the 1-h retention test. In long-term retention, tests were not identified significant differences among groups.
Lundbye-Jensen et al. (2017) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Seventy-seven pre-adolescent children.	Visuomotor Accuracy Tracking Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + Floorball Group; Practice + Exercise Group and Just practice Group. Intervention: Pre-test with 1 block of 24 trials. Practice with 3 blocks of 24 trials, and retention tests with 4 blocks of 24 trials after 1 h and 1 day from the end to the practice.	Type: Running or Floorball, Intensity: It was not explicitly provided. Volume: 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT and floorball game.	The exercise groups (running and floorball) demonstrated better retention without difference between them.
Stavrinos & Coxon (2017) PEDro = 6 1A Non-fatigue study	Twenty-four young adults.	Sequential visual isometric pinch task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Exercise + Practice Group; and Just practice Group. Intervention: Pre-test with 2 blocks of 16 trials. Practice with 7 blocks of 8 trials, and a 5-h retention test with 4 blocks of 8 trials.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 90% HR_reserve during high-intensity blocks, 50% HR_reserve during low-intensity blocks. Volume: 4 x 2 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 4 x 3 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	The groups were equal during practice. The exercise group demonstrated better retention than the control group.
Dal Maso, Desormeau, Boudrias, & Roig (2018) PEDro = 5 2B* Non-fatigue study	Twenty-five young adults.	Visuomotor Accuracy Tracking Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + exercise Group; and Practice + rest Group. Intervention: Practice was composed of 5 blocks of 20 trials. The retention tests were run after 8 h and 24-h from practice; each of them was composed of 2 blocks of 20 trials.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 90% VO2_peak during high-intensity blocks, 50 W during low-intensity blocks. Volume: Total volume (20 min) - 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 3 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Cadence: 70-80 rpm. Condition: HIIT.	In the 24-h retention test, both groups retained motor performance, but the exercise group demonstrated better motor performance than the rest group.
Ferrer-Uris et al. (2018) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Thirty-three children.	Rotational visuomotor adaptation task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Exercise + Practice Group; Practice + Exercise Group and Just practice Group. Intervention: 104 trials for baseline, 312 trials for adaptation practice and retention tests with 104 trials under adaptation after 1 h, 1 day, and 7 days.	Type: Running, Intensity: 85% VO2_max during high-intensity blocks, 60% VO2_max during low-intensity blocks. Volume: 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	There was no difference among groups during the practice. The group that performed cardiovascular exercise before the practice demonstrated better retention than the control group.
Baird et al. (2018) PEDro = 6 1A Non-fatigue study	Forty-eight young adults.	Serial target task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: High-intensity exercise + Practice Group; Low-intensity exercise + Practice; Just practice Group. Intervention: 1 trial for pre-test, 114 trials for practice, and a 24-h retention test with 72 trials.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 80% VO2_max (high-intensity group) and 40% VO2_max (low-intensity group). Volume: Individually modified so that each participant expended 200 kcals. Cadence: 60 rpm, Condition: Continuous.	All groups demonstrated motor learning, without difference among them. The exercise (high and low) modified the kinematic reach movements.
Tomporowski & Pendleton, (2018) Experiment 1 PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Thirty-two young adults.	Pursuit-rotor tracking task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + Simple Exercise Group; Practice + Complex Exercise Group; Just practice Group. Intervention: 5 blocks of 10 trials for practice, it also was provided retention tests of 10 trials immediately after the exercise and after 1 and 7 days.	Type: Computer-based step dance (Dance Dance Revolution). Complexity: It was manipulated by the number and sequences of the steps. Volume: 10 min total, alternating periods of 2 min of exercise, and 30 s of rest.	The Complex Exercise Group demonstrated a better long-term retention test than the Control Group.
Tomporowski & Pendleton, (2018) Experiment 2 PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Thirty-one young adults.	Pursuit-rotor tracking task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Simple Exercise + Practice Group; Complex Exercise + Practice Group; Just practice Group. Intervention: 5 blocks of 10 trials for practice, it also was provided retention tests of 10 trials immediately after the exercise and after 1 and 7 days.	Type: Computer-based step dance (Dance Dance Revolution). Complexity: It was manipulated by the number and sequences of the steps. Volume: 10 min total, alternating periods of 2 min of exercise, and 30 s of rest.	The exercise did not impact motor learning independently of the complexity.
Angulo-Barroso, Ferrer-Uris, & Busquets (2019) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Seventy-one children.	Rotational visuomotor adaptation task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Long exercise + practice Group; Short exercise + practice Group; Rest + practice Group. Intervention: 20 trials for familiarization, 104 trials for baseline, 312 trials for adaptation practice (60° clockwise rotational sets), and retention tests with 104 trials under adaptation after 1 h, 1 and 7 days.	Type: Running. Intensity: 85% VO2_max during high-intensity blocks, 60% VO2_max during low-intensity blocks. Volume: for long exercise group (3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between), for short exercise group (2 x 2 blocks of high-intensity separated by 1 min of low-intensity). Condition: HIIT.	The exercise did not impact adaptation. However, both exercise groups demonstrated better retention than the control group. The duration of the exercise did not influence motor learning.
Charalambous, French, Morton, & Reisman (2019) PEDro = 7 2B* Non-fatigue study	Twenty-six young adults.	Split-belt locomotor skill.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + Exercise Group; Practice + Rest Group. Intervention: Pre-test of 2 min with symmetric conditions. The practice was composed of 5 min in asymmetric conditions (3:1). The 24-h and 7-days retention tests were composed of 5 min and 15 min, respectively. The retention tests were performed in asymmetric conditions (3:1).	Type: total body exerciser, Intensity:77-94% HR_max and ≥ 10 mmol/l lactate. Volume: 5 min. Cadence: Nor reported, Condition: Continuous	Both groups demonstrated improvement in the adaptation during the practice, retained, and relearned similarly.
Jo, Chen, Riechman, Roig, & Wright (2019) PEDro = 6 1A Non-fatigue study	Forty-six young adults.	Motor sequence task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Just Practice Group; Practice + Interfering Practice Group, and Practice + Exercise + Interfering Practice Group. Intervention: Practice of 10 blocks of 20 trials. The interfering practice was composed of a new sequence that also had the practice of 200 trials. A 6-h retention test (10 trials) was run with the sequence of the first practice block.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: From 80% HR_max. Volume: 20 min. Cadence: Between 75 rpm, Condition: Continuous.	The exercise group did not demonstrate a significant difference if compared to the non-exercise group regarding retroactive interference.
Neva et al. (2019) PEDro = 6 1A Non-fatigue study	Seventeen young adults.	Visuomotor rotation task.	Experimental Design: Cross-Over. Firstly, a baseline with 32 trials per arm with veridical feedback. After the participant performs the following experimental design with rest or exercise prior. Intervention: Rest or Exercise + 200 trials with 45° CW or CCW rotated feedback + Inter-limb transfer 16 trials with 45° CW or CCW rotated feedback + 24-h retention test with 16 trials in left and right arms with 45° CW or CCW rotated feedback. Washout for exercise and rest conditions: ≥ 2 weeks.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: From 65% to 70% of HR_max. Volume: 25 min. Cadence: Between 70 and 90 rpm, Condition: Continuous.	Cardiovascular exercise induced better adaptation and motor learning. As well, it was identified that cardiovascular exercise did not influence inter-limb transfer. However, the reaction time of the opposite limb was better after the cardiovascular exercise bout.
Opie & Semmler (2019) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Thirteen young adults	Ballistic thumb abduction task	Experimental Design: Cross-Over. Condition 1: High-intensity exercise + practice + 24-h retention test. Condition 2: Low-intensity exercise + practice + 24-h retention test. Condition 3: Rest + practice + 24-h retention test. Intervention: The practice and the retention test were composed of 150 trials. On the retention test day, there was no exercise. Washout: 2 weeks.	Type: Running. Intensity: 85% HR_reserve and 25% HR_reserve for high-intense condition (HIIT). 50% HR_reserve for the low-intense condition. Volume: 4 x 3.5 min in high and low-intensity blocks for the high-intense condition. 30 min for a low-intense condition. Condition: HIIT or continuous.	Exercise improved retention and relearning. The low-intensity condition was better in the retention test than the high-intensity condition.
Stranda et al. (2019) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Twenty-six young adults.	Keyboard Typing Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + Exercise Group; Just Practice Group. Intervention: 4 weeks, 3 sessions per week, 10 min of practice per day. A 7-days retention test was run with 3 min of practice.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 65% HR_max. Volume: 15 min. Cadence: It was not reported. Condition: Continuous.	Both groups improved motor performance and similarly maintained it in the retention test.
Beck et al. (2020) PEDro = 8 1A Non-fatigue study	Forty-eight young adults.	Visuomotor Accuracy Tracking Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Practice + interfering rTMS Group, Practice + sham rTMS Group, Practice + Exercise + Interfering rTMS Group. Intervention: Pre-test of 12 trials, Practice of 3 blocks/ 20 trials, immediate retention test of 12 trials, and a 24-h retention composed of 20 trials.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 90% VO2_peak during high-intensity blocks, 60% VO2_peak during low-intensity blocks. Cadence: 80 rpm, Volume: 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 3 x 2 min blocks of moderate-intensity in between. Condition: HIIT.	The rTMS impaired offline learning. The exercise prevented deleterious effects of the rTMS. The exercise group demonstrated offline learning paired with the sham rTMS group.
Lorås et al. (2020) PEDro = 7 1A Non-fatigue study	Forty young adults.	Golf putting task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Moderate-intensity Exercise + Practice Group; High-intensity Exercise + Practice Group. Intervention: Practice of 6 blocks of 10 trials. 24-h retention and transfer (ball closer to the target) tests were composed of 10 trials each.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity: 50% HR_máx, or 75% HR_máx. Volume: 20 min. Cadence: It was not reported. Condition: Continuous.	Both groups demonstrated motor improvement across the practice. In the retention and transfer tests, the groups did not demonstrate a significant difference between them.
Wanner et al. (2020) PEDro = 8 1A Non-fatigue study	Fifty young adults.	Balance stabilometer Task.	Experimental Design: Parallel Group. Groups: Minimal-intense exercise + Practice Group; Moderate-intensity Exercise + Practice Group; High-intensity Exercise + Practice Group. Intervention: Pre-test of 2 trials, 15 trials for practice, and a 24-h retention test with 10 trials.	Type: Stationary bike, Intensity (High/ moderate): 90/45% W_max for high-intensity blocks, 60/25% W_max for low-intensity blocks, for the minimal intense group was used 25% W_max. Cadence: ≥ 80 rpm, Volume: 3 x 3 min blocks of high-intensity interspersed with 2 x 2 min blocks of low-intensity in between, for the minimal-intense group - 17 min continuous. Condition: HIIT or continuous.	All groups demonstrated motor improvement during practice and maintained it in the retention test, without significant difference among them.

Universidade Estadual Paulista Universidade Estadual Paulista, Av. 24-A, 1515, 13506-900 Rio Claro, SP/Brasil, Tel.: (55 19) 3526-4330 - Rio Claro - SP - Brazil
E-mail: motriz.rc@unesp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Associate Editor: Angelina Zanesco, Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Instituto de Biociências, Departamento de Educação Física, Rio Claro, SP, Brasil.