|  | Feature: Physical Education in Early Childhood | No.51 September 2007 |

Cognition and Motor Activity in Childhood – Correlation and Causation Julia Everke & Alexander Woll |
Abstract The topic of motor activity and cognition describes a transdisciplinary research area. Paediatricians, psychologists, sociologist, philosophers, sport scientists, to name only a few, are involved in this research. They all have a different perspective on correlation and causation in terms of cognition and motor activity and this is a very promising opportunity to accumulate new knowledge. Scientific studies on the connection between motor abilities and cognition have shown different results in the past: from the claim of “no connections” between motor abilities and cognition (e.g. Matsuda & Sugihara, 1973) and “partial connections” (e.g. Schilling, 1973; Dickes, 1975; Krombholz, 1988) to “significant connections” between motor function and cognition (e.g. Scherrer, 2000; Ahnert, Bös & Schneider, 2003; Graf, 2003; Voelcker-Rehage, 2005). There is a tendency towards the last statement in recent scientific studies. The theories to explain the issue of correlation and causation in terms of cognition and motor activity have changed. During the first research peak in the 1970s, learning and developmental theories were focussed on, whereas in the 21st century, new technologies mainly in the field of neuropsychology explain connections between motor activity and cognition by physiological mechanisms. Introduction There are two dramatic developmental changes in the brain, one in early childhood and one in old age. Both research areas are enormously important socially and politically and of course in terms of physical and psychological well-being. The interdisciplinary approach widens research opportunities and interpretation of research results. Since the start of the 20th century, there have been scientific studies involving motor and cognitive ability tests and they have predominantly found a positive connection between motor activity and cognition (cf. Sibley & Etnier, 2003). In the early 1990s, physiological processes in the brain were visualized through new technologies (fMRT) for the first time before, after and during physical activity. They have shown that physical activity has a positive impact on brain function in the adult brain (cf. Hollmann & Strüder, 2003). These approaches will lead to new perspectives on motor and cognitive development and on the influences of physical activity in childhood. Historical and chronological point of view The connection between motor activity (body) and cognition (mind) was discussed by Plato, Aristoteles, Rousseau. The dualistic perspective, which holds that body and mind are not one unit, was in contrast to the holistic perspective which means body and mind are one entity and anything that happens to one will influence the other. The holistic perspective is common sense these days (cf. Etnier, Salazar & Landers et al., 1997), but in each decade there have also been contrasting opinions. Mosso (1892), Keller (1894), Bettmann (1896) and Miesemer (1904) postulated that physical activity is not useful for brain activities (cf. Sippel, 1927). Sad (1893) was one of the first who discussed the question whether physical activity and academic achievement could be connected. Along with Schmidt and Lessenich (1903) and Graupner (1904), he postulated that pupils in later years of schooling are superior in their physical development compared to others of the same age in younger years of schooling, who did not successfully pass a class and repeated (cf. Sippel, 1927). Similar theories were postulated by Duirsfeld (1905), Schierad (1914) and in the annual report (1911/1912) of the school doctor service of Breslau (cf. Sippel, 1927). Schüßler (1915) evaluated gymnasts and three quarters of the best gymnasts were able to participate in senior classes (cf. Sippel, 1927). Blom was, in this time, one of the first to differentiate between the level of physical activity and effects on psychological well-being. In his opinion, a high level of training in gymnastics is connected to psychological exhaustion, while light and easy levels could improve psychological achievements (cf. Sippel, 1927). As a result of breathing exercises, Lobsien (1912) postulated an improvement of memory (cf. Sippel, 1927). Mahler (1921) had the opinion that physical exercise in school breaks had at least no negative influence (in Sippel, 1927, p. 33). Sippel (1927) postulated that daily gymnastic training was necessary for physical-intellectual-psychological development and gymnastics training of 30-45 minutes had a positive influence on the well-being of the child. The common opinion however, according to Sippel, was: „Either you have muscles or brain “ (1927, p.1). The methodological approaches of the presented studies and the tests used were received with criticism and the research results are therefore questionable (cf. Sippel, 1927). Jean Piaget (1936) was one of the first scientists who looked at physical development as one of the main factors for intellectual development in children. He expressed this connection with the phrase ”sensomotor intelligence“ in early childhood and therefore the inseparable link between cognition and motor activity (cf. Piaget, 1975). Not much research was undertaken in the field of cognitive and motor development during the war and post-war periods. The question of correlation and causation in terms of the connection between motor activity and cognition was taken up again in the 1960s, reaching its first peak in the 1970s (cf. fig. 1). School notes were used as the main quantitative test criterium. Figure 1: Published studies on motor activity and cognition in childhood since 1970 (Everke & Payr, 2007). One of the first intervention studies was undertaken by Ismail and Gruber (1967). They postulated no effects in IQ after a one year physical activity program with children between 10-12 years, but found a positive impact on academic achievement measured by the Stanford Academic Achievement Test. Their conclusion was: „Finally, the correlational and factor analytic study of relationships between coordination and balance abilities on the one hand and academic and intellectual achievement on the other would suggest that these two areas of learning are closely related. It would seem to follow that if advancement in one area can be brought about, a similar advance in the second area could be anticipated” (p.191). In a study by Ismail, Kane and Kirkendall (1969) the evidence points to a positive association between the motor items of coordination and balance with measures of intelligence and scholastic ability. Leithwood and Fowler (1971), among others, evaluated the effects of 4 months of gymnastics training on complex and simple gross motor abilities and general cognitive and psychosocial functioning. Their results showed highly significant differences between motor- and nonmotor-trained groups in complex learning and significant differences in analytic cognitive style and aspects of psychological functioning, but not IQ. These results were reflected in the study by Chissom (1971) called „A factor-analytic study of the relationship of motor factors to academic criteria for first and third-grade boys“. He found significant relationships between motor abilities and measures of academic aptitude and academic achievement for first-grade boys but not for third-grade boys. Therefore he concluded: „it would seem from the evidence in this study that perceptual-motor training would be more successful when administered to younger children“ (p. 1142). Eggert and Schuck (1975) interpreted their results according to the topics of intelligence, motor ability and social status and postulated that there is a correlation between social status and intelligence as well as between motor ability and intelligence. The correlation between intelligence and motor ability decreases when age increases as evaluated in a study by Willimczik in 1975 (cf. Zimmer, 1996, S. 58). Cobb and Chissom (1975) evaluated the „relationships among perceptual-motor, self-concept, and academic measures for children in Kindergarten, grades one and two“. In the conclusion of their study they wrote that perceptual-motor ability is highly related to academic ability for all of the three grade levels. Self-concept as an intervening variable cannot be supported by the results of this study. In contrary to the presented studies, Schilling (1973) did not find a general correlation between motor ability and intelligence. The motor activity program designed for disadvantaged children by Schuck and Adden (1973) showed significant improvements in the intervention group compared to the control groups in terms of motor and cognitive abilities. Thomas, Chissom, Stewart and Shelley (1975) designed an intervention program as well, however, they could not underline the transfer hypothesis with their results. In the same year, Dickes (1975) evaluated kindergarten children with the variables of cognitive and verbal abilities. His conclusion was that while there are no connections between cognitive functioning and gross motor skills, fine motor skills are another chapter. Another intervention program was designed by Zimmer (1981). Her research focus was motor ability, cognition and self-development in preschool children. The results showed significant improvements in the intervention group and therefore connections between motor ability and cognition. A short daily intervention was more effective than a longer intervention over a few times per week. Scherrer (2000) postulated a highly significant connection between items of intelligence and motor ability in preschool children. The connection between practical intelligence and motor ability was higher then the connection between verbal intelligence and motor ability. In contrast to the presented studies by Chissom (1971), Eggert and Schuck (1975), Cobb and Chissom (1975), Zimmer (1981) and the following studies by Ahnert, Bös and Schneider (2003) and Voelcker-Rehage (2005) there has been no correlation decrease with increasing age. The Munich Longitudinal Study on the Genesis of Individual Competencies (LOGIK) evaluated motor development and cognitive development between 1984-1993 during the preschool and school years (cf. Ahnert, Bös & Schneider, 2003). They postulated: „As a main result, all motor skills under study improved continuously over the years of the study. They turned out to be rather stable over the years, with stability increasing as a function of age. There was only a low to moderate association between motor skills and intellectual abilities on the one hand and physical attributes on the other. Correlation coefficients varied considerably dependent on gender and within-group age differences. Overall, the results indicate that motor development should be fostered in both kindergarten and school“ (Ahnert, Bös & Schneider, 2003, p.185) In the Zürcher longitudinal study, no connections between IQ results and motor ability tests were found. They proclaim a specific differentiation dependent on the developmental stage of the participants (cf. Neuhäuser, 2004). The longitudinal study by Krombholz (1988) showed no clear connection between motor achievement and cognitive achievement. Another longitudinal study of the same time by Becker et al. (1991) did show a connection between motor ability and cognition. In the 21st century, the second peak of research in terms of connection between motor ability and cognition occurs (cf. fig.1). The impact of physical activity on cognitive development is again the focus of research. „It seems that the need to justify exercise and PE programs in the school has returned. PE programs are being cut from our schools in favour of „core academic“ subjects“ (Sibley & Etnier, 2003, p. 243.) The breakthrough of this second peak is the explanation of the impact of physical activity on cognition: On the one side, there are again the developmental and learning theories which underline the studies, and on the other side the new theories about physiological changes as the outcome of physical activity. In 1986, Don R. Kirkendall wrote the following, which was dated a decade after his statement: „Surprisingly, I have been unable to find a single study that examines the mind-body relationship from a physiological point of view or asks whether physiological changes in the brain occur with exercise that would also enhance intellectual development“ (Kirkendall, 1986, p. 58). In the late 90s, the advances in the fields of neuropsychology and animal research were used to discover mechanisms that could explain the link between physical activity and cognitive functioning (cf. Etnier, Salazar & Landers, 1997). One mechanism is increased cerebral blood flow which occurs during physical activity and could cause a benefit in cognitive functioning through an increase in supply of necessary nutrients to the brain (cf. Etnier, Salazar & Landers, 1997). Another possibility is the change in neurotransmitter constellations, e.g. high levels of norepinephrin, which are associated with better memory (cf. Etnier, Salazar & Landers, 1997). Graf, Koch and Klippel et al. (2003) assessed motor ability and concentration ability in primary school children. The children with the best results in the motor ability test where those who achieved the highest scores in the qualitative and quantitative concentration tasks. Graf’s explanation is based on the common cerebral learning and control processes, in addition to strain-induced neurophysiological and haemodynamic activation. Bittmann, Gutschow and Luther et al. (2005) tested the hypothesis that there is a connection between balance ability as a motor parameter and school success as an intellectual parameter. Similar to the results of Graf, Koch and Klippel et al. (2003), they found highly significant differences between good and poor students. The explanation was described by the statement that both intellectual and motor performances are considered a result of the functioning of the nervous system. A dysfunction of the central nervous system could lead to intellectual and physical deficit and balance ability plays a prominent role due to higher neuronal processing. The correlation between Motor and Cognitive Development in Early Childhood was the topic of the study by Voelcker-Rehage (2005). There were significant connections between motor abilities determined by the central nervous system, e.g. fine coordination skills, and the accuracy of differentiation. Children with high scores in the motor ability test where the ones with high scores in the cognitive test. Similar to the studies by Bittmann, Gutschow and Luther et al. (2005) and Graf, Koch and Klippel et al. (2003), these are results discussed from a physiological perspective and the causation may be that physical activity support processes of the central nervous system that are also responsible for cognitive processes. The activity dependent increase in cerebral blood flow, metabolic rate and neurotransmitter concentration, or synaptogenesis, might be an explanation for these effects. There are three meta-analyses about motor activity and cognition. Etnier, Salazar and Landers et al. published their study on „The influence of Physical Fitness and Exercise Upon Cognitive Functioning: A Meta-Analysis“ in 1997. The overall effect size of the meta-analysis was 0.25 and they concluded that there is a small positive effect on cognition. In 2003, Sibley and Etnier published another meta-analysis about „The Relationship Between Physical Activity and Cognition in Children: A Meta-Analysis“. The result of this study was that there is a significant positive relationship between physical activity and cognitive functioning in children. Conclusion The cause is yet unknown, but there is hardly any doubt in the research community about correlations between motor activity and cognition. The causation factor is evaluated by animal testing, and some results have already had an impact on older peoples’ environments (thesis of enriched environment) and behaviour (aerobic training) and in the education system (active pause, enriched environment). But more research needs to be done to support the transfer and causation hypothesis. As Kirkendall said, “In closing, I will say there are valid research questions to be answered in this area, and I suspect that we may again see attempts at answering them” (1986, p. 58/59). In a field experiment, proving causation and correlation is impossible because of the complexity of a child’s development and environment. The way to examine under laboratory conditions and try to transform these scientific research results into the real world is the only possible but also a most contested way. New technologies will lead to more detailed information about the small pieces in the brain world. The medical and neuroscientist breakthroughs can give us one part of the answer. These approaches will lead to new perspectives, but only in connection to disciplines which focus on the whole child (e.g. Paediatrics, Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy) and research utilising inter- and trans-disciplinary teamwork is necessary to learn more about the connection between motor activity or motor development and cognitive abilities or cognitive development. It’s a fortunate person whose brain Is trained early, again and again. And who continues to use it To be sure not to lose it So the brain, in old age, may not wane (M.R. Rosenzweig, E.L. Bennett, 1996, p. 57-65). References Ahnert, J., Bös, K. & Schneider, W. (2003). Motorische und kognitive Entwicklung im Vorschul- und Schulalter: Befunde der Münchner Längsschnittstudie LOGIK. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 35 (4), 185-199. Becker, K.P. (Hrsg.). (1991). Entwicklungsdynamik drei- bis neunjähriger Kinder. Ergebnisse einer interdisziplinären Längsschnittstudie über die biopsychosoziale Entwicklung. Band 50: Beiträge zum Sonderschulwesen und zur Rehabilitationspädagogik. Berlin: Verlag Gesundheit. Bittmann, F., Gutschow, S. & Luther, S. et al. (2005). Über den funktionellen Zusammenhang zwischen posturalter Balanceregulierung und schulischen Leistungen. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 56 (10), 348-352. Chissom, B.S. (1971). A factor analytic study of the relationship of motor factors to academic criteria for first –and third-grade boys. Child Development, 42 (3), 1133-1143. Cobb, P.R., Chissom, B.S. (1975). Relationships among perceptual-motor, self-concept, and academic measures for children in kindergarten, grades one and two. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 539-546. Dickes, P. (1975). Zusammenhänge zwischen motorischen und kognitiven Variablen bei Kindern im Vorschulalter. In H.-J. Müller, R. Decker, F. Schilling (Hrsg.), Motorik im Vorschulalter (S. 119-128). Schorndorf: Hofmann. Graf, C., Koch, B. & Klippel, S. et al. (2003). Zusammenhänge zwischen körperlicher Aktivität und Konzentration im Kindesalter – Eingangsergebnisse des CHILT – Projektes. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 54 (9), 242-246. Eggert, D., Schuck, K.D. (1975). Untersuchungen zu Zusammenhängen zwischen Intelligenz, Motorik und Sozialstatus im Vorschulalter. In H.-J. Müller, R. Decker, F. Schilling (Hrsg.), Motorik im Vorschulalter (S. 67-82), Schorndorf: Hofmann. Etnier, J.L., Salazar, W. & Landers, D.M. et al. (1997). The Influence of Physical Fitness and Exercise Upon Cognitive Functioning : A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 249-277. Graf, C., Koch, B., Klippel, S., et al. (2003). Zusammenhänge zwischen körperlicher Aktivität und Konzentration im Kindesalter – Eingangsergebnisse des CHILT – Projektes. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 54, 9, 242-246. Gruber, J.J. (1975). Exercise and mental performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 28-40. Hollmann, W. & Strüder, H.K. (2003). Gehirngesundheit, -leistungsfähigkeit und körperliche Aktivität. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 54 (9), 265-266. Ismail, A.H. & Gruber, J.J. (1967). Integrated Development – Motor Aptitude and Intellectual Performance. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc. Ismail, A.H., Kane, J. & Kirkendall, D.R. (1969). Relationships among intellectual and nonintellectual variables. The Research Quarterly, 40 (1), 83-92. Kirkendall, D.R. (1986). Effects of Physical Activity on Intellectual Development and Academic Performance. In G. A. Stull & H. M. Eckert (Eds.), Effects of Physical Activity on children. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics. American Academy of Physical Education Papers 19. (pp 49-63). Krombholz, H. (1988). Sportliche und kognitive Leistungen im Grundschulalter – Eine Längsschnittuntersuchung. Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York, Paris: Peter Lang. Leithwood, K. A. & Fowler, W. (1971). Complex motor learning in four-year-olds. Child Development, 42, 781-792. Matsuda, I. & Sugihara, T. (1973). Effects of Perceptual-Motor Activity on Cognitive Ability. Research Journal of Physical Education, 17 (6), 367-374. Neuhäuser, G. (2004). Motorisches Lernen und kognitive Entwicklung. In H. G. Schlack (Hrsg.), Entwicklungspädiatrie (S. 35-43). Hans Marseille Verlag: München. Piaget, J. (1975). Gesammelte Werke Studienausgabe Band 1: Das Erwachen der Intelligenz beim Kinde. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag. Rosenzweig, M.R. & Bennett, E.L. (1996). Psychobiology of plasticity: effects of training and experience on brain and behavior. Beh.Brain.Res., 78, 57-65. Scherrer, J. (2000). Bewegung als Entwicklungsförderung bei Kindern im Vorschulalter. Dissertation, Fachbereich Sportwissenschaften und Arbeitslehre, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität zu Frankfurt am Main. Schilling, F. (1973). Motodiagnostik des Kindesalter – Empirische Untersuchungen an hirngeschädigten und normalen Kindern. Berlin-Charlottenburg: Carl Marhold Verlagsbuchhandlung. Schuck, K.D. & Adden, D. (1973).Eine Untersuchung über den Einfluß eines motorischen Trainings auf die Intelligenzleistung lernbehinderter Sonderschüler. In D. Eggert, & E.J. Kiphard, Die Bedeutung der Motorik für die Entwicklung normaler und behinderter Kinder. Schorndorf: Hofmann. Sibley, B.A. & Etnier, J.L. (2003). The Relationship Between Physical Activity and Cognition in Children: A Meta-Analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15, 243-256. Sippel, H. (1927). Leibesübungen und geistige Leistung. In C. Diem (Hrsg.), Beiträge zur Turn- und Sportwissenschaft (Heft 5). Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Thomas, J.R., Chissom, B.S., Stewart, C. & Shelley, F. (1975). Effects of Perceptual-Motor Training on Preschool Children: A Multivariate Approach. Research Quarterly, 46, 505-513. Voelcker-Rehage, C. (2005). Der Zusammenhang zwischen motorischer und kognitiver Entwicklung im frühen Kindesalter – Ein Teilergebnis der MODALIS-Studie. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 56 (10), 358-359. Zimmer, R. (1996). Motorik und Persönlichkeitsentwicklung bei Kinder (2. durchges. u. verbess. Aufl.). Hofmann Verlag: Schorndorf. Contact Julia Everke University of Constance Fachbereich Geschichte und Soziologie, Sportwissenschaft Konstanz, Germany Email: julia.everke@uni-konstanz.de http://www.icsspe.org/portal/index.php?w=1&z=5 Cognition and Motor Activity in Childhood – Correlation and Causation Julia Everke & Alexander Woll