University of Groningen Movement, cognition and underlying brain functioning in children van der Fels, Irene

(1)

University of Groningen

Movement, cognition and underlying brain functioning in children

van der Fels, Irene

DOI:

10.33612/diss.109737306

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2020

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

van der Fels, I. (2020). Movement, cognition and underlying brain functioning in children. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.109737306

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

537804-L-bw-vd Fels 537804-L-bw-vd Fels 537804-L-bw-vd Fels 537804-L-bw-vd Fels Processed on: 3-12-2019 Processed on: 3-12-2019 Processed on: 3-12-2019

Processed on: 3-12-2019 PDF page: 21PDF page: 21PDF page: 21PDF page: 21

21

2

The relationship between motor skills and

cognitive skills in 4-16-year-old typically

developing children: A systematic review

Irene M.J. van der Felsa_{, Sanne C.M. te Wierike}a_{, Esther Hartman}a_,

Marije T. Elferink-Gemsera,b_{, Joanne Smith}a_{, Chris Visscher}a

a_{University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen,}

Center for Human Movement Sciences, The Netherlands

b_{Institute for Studies in Sports and Exercise,}

HAN University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands

(3)

22

Abstract Objectives

This review aims to give an overview of studies providing evidence for a relationship between motor and cognitive skills in typically developing children.

Design

A systematic review. Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO were searched for relevant articles. A total of 21 articles were included in this study. Methodological quality was independently assessed by two reviewers. Motor and cognitive skills were divided into six categories.

Results

There was either no correlation in the literature, or insufficient evidence for or against many correlations between motor skills and cognitive skills. However, weak-to-strong evidence was found for some correlations between underlying categories of motor skills and cognitive skills, including complex motor skills and higher-order cognitive skills. Furthermore, a stronger relationship between underlying categories of motor and cognitive skills was found in prepubertal children compared to pubertal children (older than 13 years).

Conclusions

Weak-to-strong relations were found between some motor and cognitive skills. The results suggest that complex motor intervention programs can be used to stimulate both motor and higher-order cognitive skills in prepubertal children.

(4)

23

Introduction

Historically, there have been diff erent views about the relationship between motor skills and cognitive skills in children. On the one hand, motor and cognitive skills have been considered as entirely diff erent processes, developing independently, and involving diff erent brain regions (Hertzberg, 1929). On the other hand, Piaget (1952) considered that motor and cognitive skills are closely related. Piaget’s theory was based on the idea that children learn from observable motor actions with objects. There are several explanations for a possible relationship between motor and cognitive skills in children. First, research has shown co- activations between the prefrontal cortex, the cerebellum, and the basal ganglia during several motor and cognitive tasks, especially when a task is diffi cult, a task is new, conditions of a task change, a quick response is required, and concentration is needed to perform a task (Desmond, Gabrieli, Wagner, Ginier, & Glover, 1997; Diamond, 2000). A second explanation for a relationship between motor and cognitive skills is that they might have a similar developmental timetable with an accelerated development between the ages of 5 and 10 years (Anderson, Anderson, Northam, Jacobs, & Catroppa, 2001). Third, both motor and cognitive skills have several common underlying processes, such as sequencing, monitoring, and planning (Roebers & Kauer, 2009). These possible explanations highlight a need to explore how motor skills relate with cognitive skills and whether the link is specifi c to certain categories of skill.

Motor and cognitive skills are broad concepts and have been defi ned in a number of diff erent ways. In the current review, motor skills are defi ned as learned sequences of movements that are combined to produce a smooth, effi cient action in order to master a particular task (Davis, Pitchford, & Limback, 2011b). Diff erent categories of motor skills are distinguished: (1) Gross motor skills, this includes skills like jumping, sprinting, and walking. Furthermore, all underlying physical abilities like strength, agility, fl exibility, and balance, that are needed to perform a task are included in this category; (2) Fine motor skills, which are tasks where fi ne motor precision and integration are needed (Davis, Pitchford, Jaspan, McArthur, & Walker, 2010); (3) Bilateral body coordination, this includes whole body coordination tasks and demands engagement of almost all body parts and bilateral motor coordination of lower and upper extremities (Planinšec & Pišot, 2006); (4) Timed performance in movements, these are tasks (gross/fi ne motor skills or object control tasks) in which the time a child takes to perform a required number of movements is important and are often divided into repetitive movements and sequenced movements (Jenni, Chaouch, Cafl isch, & Rousson, 2013). Repetitive movements are simple movements that are repeated as quickly as possible (Martin, Tigera, Denckla, & Mahone, 2010). Sequenced movements include alternating patterns of more complex movements performed as quickly as possible (Martin et al., 2010); (5) In the category object control, skills are included in which an object has to be controlled, such as ball skills; Finally, (6) Total motor score, which is described as the sum score of a combination of motor skills out of the fi ve other categories. It is worth to note that the categories are not exclusive and as such, motor skills from one category may contain elements of other categories.

A systematic review

(5)

24

Cognitive skills are understood as the mental actions or processes of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses (Davis et al., 2011b). Different aspects of cognitive skills are included in this review, based on the skills used in literature. Executive functions are described as higher-order cognitive skills that enable self-control and include the following metacognitive skills: response inhibition, which is described as the suppression of actions that are no longer required or that are inappropriate; planning, which is described as a plan that can be represented as a hierarchy of sub goals, each requiring actions to achieve the goal; attention, which is described as the ability to attend to some things while ignoring others; and working memory, which is described as the ability to store and manipulate information over a period of seconds to minutes (Gazzaniga, 2009). Visual processing is described as a path that information takes from visual sensors to cognitive processing (Boden & Giaschi, 2007). Short-term memory is described as the capacity to hold information in mind in the absence of external stimulation over a short period of time (Nee & Jonides, 2013). Information retained for a significant time is referred to as long-term memory (Gazzaniga, 2009). Fluid intelligence is the ability to think logically and solve problems in novel situations; this is independent of acquired knowledge (Cattell, 1971). Crystallized intelligence refers to the capacity to use skills, knowledge, and experience by accessing information from long-term memory (Cattell, 1971). Intelligence quotient (IQ) is a measure to calculate a person’s intelligence. Academic skills are skills developed or measured in educational settings.

Recent literature has reviewed relationships between motor and cognitive skills in children with DCD and children born preterm (Jongbloed-Pereboom, Janssen, Steenbergen, & Nijhuis- van der Sanden, 2012; Wilson, Ruddock, Smits-Engelsman, Polatajko, & Blank, 2013). Wilson et al. (2013) suggested a relationship between impaired motor skills like rhythmic coordination, gait and postural control, catching and interceptive action and impaired cognitive skills like internal (forward) modeling, executive function, and aspects of sensoriperceptual function in children with DCD. Jongbloed-Pereboom et al. (2012) found that information regarding the relationship between different components of motor learning and working memory in children born preterm was not available in literature. However, we are not aware of any reviews that focus on the relationship between motor skills and cognitive skills in typically developing children. Therefore, the present review aims to give an overview of studies providing evidence for a relationship between motor and cognitive skills in typically developing children. If there are indications for relationships between components of motor and cognitive skills, programs focusing on one domain could be designed to optimize performance of both motor and cognitive skills in typically developing children.

(6)

25

Methods

The databases used for the literature search were PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO; they were searched for records that contained one of the following combinations of terms ([1 AND 2] OR 3):

Motor skills (OR motor skill competency OR motor performance OR motor coordination OR motor function OR motor development OR motor abilities OR motor control OR motor examination OR motor milestones OR motor behavior OR fi ne motor skills OR gross motor skills OR postural control OR movement assessment battery OR fi ne and gross motor development) OR test of gross motor development.

Cognitive skills (OR cognitive performance OR cognitive function OR cognitive abilities OR cognitive behavior OR cognitive control OR cognitive processes OR cognition) OR intelligence (OR IQ) OR academic achievement (OR kindergarten achievement) OR language development OR executive functions (OR memory OR working memory OR attention).

Cognitive-motor structures (OR cognitive predictors of motor functions OR motor and cognitive dimensions OR executive function, motor performance and externalizing behavior). Inclusion criteria for this review were that the studies were (1) published between 2000 and 2013, (2) written in English, (3) focused on children aged 4–16-year-old, (4) reporting a correlation, regression analysis, or factor structure between motor skills and cognitive skills, and (5) original articles. The age range was chosen, because motor functioning as well as executive functions show an accelerated development between 5 and 10 years with a continued development into adolescence (Anderson et al., 2001). The limited range of literature between 2000 and 2013 was selected, because it gives an overview of the most recent literature on the relationship between motor and cognitive skills, without constraining the broad defi nitions of motor and cognitive skills.

Exclusion criteria for this review were (1) studies with special populations (e.g. children with developmental disorders, brain injuries, adoptees, children born preterm, children with gifted performance), and (2) intervention studies.

The stages adopted in the systematic search resulted in 21 relevant articles being identifi ed for further analysis (Figure 1).

1.

2.

3.

A systematic review

(7)

26

Figure 1. Stages adopted in the selection of articles. a_{Based on inclusion criteria 1, 2, and 5 and the search was}

based on title; b_{Based on inclusion criterion 1, 2, and 3 (child: birth – 18 years);}c_{Based on inclusion criterion 1, 2,}

and 3 (childhood, preschool age, school age, adolescence) and the search was based on title; d_{We asked several}

principal investigators in the fi eld for suggestions to prevent missing key publications not included by searching electronic databases.

Chapter 2

Articles located based on literature search

Based on inclusion criteria 1 and 2 n = 774 Web of Sciencea _{n = 536}

PubMedb _{n = 229}

PsycINFOc _{n = 9}

Analysis based on reading titles (n = 750)

Analysis based on reading abstract (n = 86)

Analysis based on reading full text (n = 24)

Articles selected from electronic databases as described above (n = 18)

Articles included in the review (n = 18 + 3 = 21)

Exclusion of duplicate studies (n = 24)

Exclusion after reading titles n = 664 Based on exclusion criterion 1 n = 364 Based on inclusion criterion 5 n = 170 Based on inclusion criterion 3 n = 96 Based on exclusion criterion 2 n = 27 Based on inclusion criterion 4 n = 7

Exclusion after reading abstract n = 62 Based on inclusion criterion 5 n = 28 Based on inclusion criterion 3 n = 13 Based on inclusion criterion 4 n = 11 Based on exclusion criterion 1 n = 8 Based on exclusion criterion 2 n = 2

Exclusion after reading full text n = 6 Based on inclusion criterion 3 n = 5 Based on exclusion criterion 1 n = 1

Articles suggested by principal investigators in the fieldd_{(n = 3)}

(8)

27 The included articles were evaluated for methodological quality according to the guidelines by Law et al. (1998). This method evaluated each article using the following main categories: study purpose, literature background, study design, sample, outcomes, intervention, results, conclusions and clinical implications. The methodological quality was assessed using 14 questions (see footnote Table 1). These questions were scored as either 1 (met the criteria) or 0 (did not meet the criteria). The scores on the 14 questions were summed for each article. For question fi ve, articles only met the criteria when the sample size was at least 100 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). For questions seven and eight, articles only met the criteria when all the assessment tools were reliable or valid. A total score below seven was considered as low methodological quality, a score between seven and ten points was considered as good methodological quality and 11 points or higher was considered as high methodological quality. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies. Diff erent scores were discussed and consensus was reached in all cases. Table 1 shows the methodological quality of the reviewed studies.

A systematic review

(9)

28

Table 1. Methodological quality of the reviewed studiesa

Note. a_{1 = meet criteria; 0 = does not meet criteria;}b_{1) Was the study purpose stated clearly? 2) Was relevant}

background literature reviewed? 3) Was the design appropriate for the research question? 4) Was the sample described in detail? 5) Was sample size justified? 6) Was informed consent obtained? 7) Were the outcome measures reliable? 8) Were the outcome measures valid? 9) Were results reported in terms of statistical significance? 10) Were the analysis methods appropriate? 11) Was clinical importance reported? 12) Were conclusions appropriate given the study methods? 13) Are there any implications for clinical practice given the results of the study? 14) Were limitations of the study acknowledged and described by the authors?

Chapter 2

Table 1. Methodological quality of the reviewed studiesa_.

Question numberb 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 8 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 12 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 10 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 Cameron et al. (2012) Castelli et al. (2006) Davis et al. (2010) Davis et al. (2011b) Decker et al. (2011) Jenni et al. (2013) Katic and Bala (2012) Kovač and Strel (2000) Livesey et al. (2006) Martin et al. (2010) Morales et al. (2011) Nourbakhsh (2006) Pangelinan et al. (2011) Planinsec (2002a) Planinsec (2002b) Planinsec and Pisot (2006) Rigoli et al. (2012a) Rigoli et al. (2012b) Roebers and Kauer (2009) Smits-Engelsman and Hill (2012)

Wassenberg et al. (2005) 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 10

Note. a_{1 = meet criteria; 0 = does not meet criteria;}b_{1) Was the study purpose stated clearly? 2) Was}

relevant background literature reviewed? 3) Was the design appropriate for the research question? 4) Was the sample described in detail? 5) Was sample size justiﬁed? 6) Was informed consent obtained? 7) Were the outcome measures reliable? 8) Were the outcome measures valid? 9) Were results reported in terms of statistical signiﬁcance? 10) Were the analysis methods appropriate? 11) Was clinical importance reported? 12) Were conclusions appropriate given the study methods? 13) Are there any implications for clinical practice given the results of the study? 14) Were limitations of the study acknowledged and described by the authors?

(10)

29 To interpret levels of evidence, the following regulations were used (Berghmans et al., 2000; de Croon et al., 2004):

To state that there is strong evidence for or against a relationship between motor and cognitive skills, at least three high methodological quality studies with consistent results for this relationship were needed, or more than four studies of which more than 66% found consistent results and no more than 25% found an opposite result.

To state there is weak evidence for or against a relationship between motor and cognitive skills, three studies of which two are in agreement and the third which is not in agreement, or at least three low or good quality studies with consistent positive results for or against the relationship were needed.

There was insuffi cient evidence for a correlation between motor and cognitive skills when there were low or moderate quality studies with inconsistent results or with fewer than three studies of whatever quality.

There was no evidence for a correlation between motor and cognitive skills when there was only one study available.

Motor skills were divided into the following six categories: gross motor skills, fi ne motor skills, bilateral body coordination, timed performance in movements, object control, and total motor score. Motor skills from one category might contain elements of other categories, since the categories are not exclusive. When this was the case, these skills were classifi ed in the category where they fi tted the best according to the original article. Most of the studies reported correlations between motor skills and cognitive skills. Correlations lower than 0.3 were considered as weak, correlations between 0.3 and 0.5 were considered as moderate, and correlations above 0.5 were considered as strong (Cohen, 1988; Field, 2009).

Results

Appendix 2.1 shows the authors, number of participants, motor and cognitive skills, and the results of each of the 21 studies according to their category. All correlations (positive and negative) indicated that better performance in motor skills is related to better performance in cognitive skills. It is worth noting that sometimes lower scores in one test indicated better performance (the test had to be performed in less time) while in the other test, higher scores indicated better performance. The correlation between two tests can thus be negative, even though it indicates that better performance in one test is related to better performance in the other test. Some of the included articles studied diff erent categories of motor skills, so they were included in more than one category. Table 2 provides a summary of the results section, including the relationships investigated and strength of evidence for or against relationships.

1. 2. 3. 4. A systematic review

2

(11)

30 Table 2. Summar y of the r esults section Table 2. Summary of the result section. Motor skill Cognitive skill No correlation Weak correlation

Moderate correlation Strong correlation

Evidence

Gross motor skills

Executive

functions

Strong (no correlation)

Visual processing Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2011b) a Insufficient Short-term memory Insufficient Long-term memory

Insufficient Strong (no correlation) Weak

(weak) Insufficient Rigoli et al. (2012b) c Roebers & Kauer (2009) Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2011b) a Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2011b) a Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2011b) a Insufficient No Fluid intelligence

Crystallized intelligence IQ Academic skills General

knowledge

Visuospatial

working

memory

Livesey et al. (2006) Rigoli et al. (2012a)

c

Roebers & Kauer (2009) Davis et

al. (2011b) a Kovac & Strel (2000) Planinsec (2002 a) Planinsec (2002 b) Cameron et al. (2012) No

Jenni et al. (2013) Rigoli et al. (2012b)

b

Cameron et al. (2012) Rigoli et al. (2012b)

b

(12)

31 Insufficient Cameron et al. (2012)

Weak (no correlation)

Rigoli et al. (2012a) b Rigoli et al. (2012b) b Rigoli et al. (2012a) b Rigoli et al. (2012b) b

Rigoli et al. (2012a)

b

No No

Fine motor skills Weak (weak- moderate)

Davis et al. (2010) a,c Davis et al. (2011b) a,c

Insufficient Weak (weak- moderate)

Davis et al. (2010) a,c Davis et al. (2011b) a,c Insufficient Davis et al. (2010) a,c Davis et al. (2011b) a,c

Strong (moderate- strong) No

Working

memory

Verbal comprehension Attention Cognitive

capacity to encode and analyze information Short-term memory

Long-term memory Fluid

intelligence Crystallized intelligence Visual processing General knowledge Academic skills Rigoli et al. (2012b) b Katic & Bala (2012) Davis et al. (2011b) a,c Davis et al. (2010) a,c Davis et al. (2011b) a,c Davis et al. (2010) a,c Cameron et al. (2012) Cameron et al. (2012) Cameron et al. (2012) c Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2011b) a,c Davis et al. (2010) a,c Davis et al. (2011b) a Davis et al. (2010) a,c Davis et al. (2011b) a,c Davis et al. (2010) a,c Davis et al. (2011b) a,c Cameron et al. (2012) c Morales et al. (2011) Insufficient

2

(13)

32 Insufficient No Rigoli et al. (2012b) b Rigoli et al. (2012b) b Rigoli et al. (2012b) b No Livesey et al. (2006) Insufficient

b

No

Bilateral body coordination

Roebers & Kauer (2009)

No Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2011b) a

Insufficient Insufficient Insufficient

Planinsec (2002b) c Planinsec & Pisot (2006) c Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2011b) a Planinsec (2002a) b

Strong (weak- moderate correlation) No

Verbal comprehension Working memory Visuospatial working

memory Executive functions Attention Executive functions Visual

processing Short-term memory Long-term memory Fluid intelligence

Academic skills Cognitive capacity

to encode and analyze information Katic & Bala (2012) p Cameron et al. (2012) Rigoli et al. (2012a) b Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2011b) a Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2011b) a Kovac & Strel (2000) Planinsec (2002a) g Planinsec (2002b) c Planinsec & Pisot (2006) c Nourbakhsh (2006) Katic & Bala (2012) pp No

(14)

33 Crystallized intelligence Davis et al. (2010) a Davis et al. (2011b) a Insufficient

Timed performance in movements

Executive

functions

Roebers & Kauer (2009)

No IQ Jenni et al. (2013) c

Weak (weak- moderate)

Planinsec (2002a)

m,c

Weak (weak- moderate) No

Object control Jenni et al. (2013) c Kovac & Strel (2000) p Planinsec (2002b) Pangelinan et al. (2001) Livesey et al. (2006) Rigoli et al. (2012a) b Castelli et al. (2006) Insufficient Weak (weak) Fluid intelligence Spatial working memory

Executive functions Fluid

intelligence Working memory Jenni et al. (2013) c Martin et al. (2010) Pangelinan et al. (2001) Kovac & Strel (2000) pp Planinsec (2002a) f Planinsec (2002a) m,c Decker et al. (2011)

Planinsec (2002a) Planinsec &

Pisot (2006) Decker et al. (2011) Rigoli et al. (2012a) b Rigoli et al. (2012b) b Weak (weak)

2

(15)

34 Not e. aStudies b y D avis et al . (2010; 2011b) r epor

ting on the same sample siz

e; bStudies b y R igoli et al . (2012a; 2012b) r epor

ting on the same sample siz

e; cStudies used differ ent underlying aspects of mot or sk ills and found differ ent results; fFemale par ticipants; mMale par ticipants; ppPr epuber tal childr en (<13 years); pPuber tal childr en (>13 y ears).

Strong (weak) Insufficient

Morales et

al. (2011)

pp

Strong (weak- moderate) No No No

Total motor score Davis et al. (2011b)

a

No Weak (no correlation) No Insufficient No

Hill

(2012)

Smits-Engelsman

&

No

Decker et al. (2011) Rigoli et al. (2012a)

b Rigoli et al. (2012b) b Rigoli et al. (2012b) b

Decker et al. (2011) Decker et al. (2011) Rigoli

et al. (2012a) b Wassenberg et al. (2005) Wassenberg et al. (2005) No Visuospatial working memory Verbal comprehension

Academic skills Attention Knowledge Quantitative

reasoning

Total

cognitive score

Executive functions Attention Working

memory Verbal comprehension IQ Visual motor integration Visual processing

b Rigoli et al. (2012b) b Morales et al. (2011) p Rigoli et al. (2012a) b Livesey et al. (2006) Wassenberg et al. (2005) Rigoli et al. (2012a) b Rigoli et al. (2012a) b Rigoli et al. (2012a) b Wassenberg et al. (2005) No

(16)

35 Twelve articles were included in the category gross motor skills (Cameron et al., 2012; Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b; Jenni et al., 2013; Katic & Bala, 2012; Kovač & Strel, 2000; Livesey, Keen, Rouse, & White, 2006; Planinsec, 2002a; Planinsec, 2002b; Rigoli, Piek, Kane, & Oosterlaan, 2012a; Rigoli, Piek, Kane, & Oosterlaan, 2012b; Roebers & Kauer, 2009). Five articles had good methodological quality and seven articles had high methodological quality. Appendix 2.1 and Table 2 show strong evidence for no correlation between gross motor skills and both executive functions and fl uid intelligence (Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b; Kovač & Strel, 2000; Livesey et al., 2006; Planinsec, 2002a; Planinsec, 2002b; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Rigoli et al., 2012b; Roebers & Kauer, 2009). There was weak evidence for no correlation between gross motor skills and verbal comprehension (Cameron et al., 2012; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Rigoli et al., 2012b). Weak evidence was found for a weak correlation between gross motor skills and crystallized intelligence (Cameron et al., 2012; Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b). There was insuffi cient evidence for a correlation between gross motor skills and visual processing, short-term memory, long term memory, IQ, academic skills, and working memory (Cameron et al., 2012; Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b; Jenni et al., 2013; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Rigoli et al., 2012b). There was no evidence for a correlation between gross motor skills and general knowledge, visuospatial working memory, attention, and cognitive capacity to encode and analyze (Cameron et al., 2012; Katic & Bala, 2012; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Rigoli et al., 2012b).

Seven articles were included in the category fi ne motor skills (Cameron et al., 2012; Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b; Livesey et al., 2006; Morales, González, Guerra, Virgili, & Unnithan, 2011; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Rigoli et al., 2012b). One article had good methodological quality and six articles had high methodological quality. Appendix 2.1 and Table 2 show strong evidence for a moderate-to-strong correlation between fi ne motor skills and visual processing (Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b). There was weak evidence for a weak-to-moderate correlation between fi ne motor skills and both short-term memory and fl uid intelligence (Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b). There was insuffi cient evidence for a correlation between fi ne motor skills and executive functions, long-term memory, crystallized intelligence, academic skills, and verbal comprehension (Cameron et al., 2012; Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b; Livesey et al., 2006; Morales et al., 2011; Rigoli et al., 2012b). No evidence was found for a correlation between fi ne motor skills and general knowledge, working memory, visuospatial working memory, and attention (Cameron et al., 2012; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Rigoli et al., 2012b; Roebers & Kauer, 2009).

Nine articles were included in the category bilateral body coordination (Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b; Katic & Bala, 2012; Kovač & Strel, 2000; Nourbakhsh, 2006; Planinsec, 2002a; Planinšec & Pišot, 2006; Planinsec, 2002b; Roebers & Kauer, 2009). Three articles had good methodological quality and six articles had high methodological quality. Appendix 2.1 and Table 2 show strong evidence for a weak-to-moderate correlation between bilateral body coordination and fl uid intelligence (Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b; Kovač & Strel, 2000; Planinsec, 2002a; Planinšec & Pišot, 2006; Planinsec, 2002b). There was insuffi cient evidence for a correlation between bilateral body coordination and visual processing, short-term memory, long-term memory, and crystallized intelligence (Davis et al., 2010; Davis et al., 2011b). There was no evidence for a relation

A systematic review

(17)

36

between bilateral body coordination and executive functions, the cognitive capacity to encode and analyze information, and academic skills (Katic & Bala, 2012; Nourbakhsh, 2006; Roebers & Kauer, 2009). Within the category bilateral body coordination, there was weak evidence that coordination of movement in rhythm showed the strongest correlations with cognitive skills (Kovač & Strel, 2000; Planinšec & Pišot, 2006; Planinsec, 2002b).

Eight articles were included in the category timed performance in movements (Jenni et al., 2013; Kovač & Strel, 2000; Martin et al., 2010; Nourbakhsh, 2006; Pangelinan et al., 2011; Planinsec, 2002a; Planinsec, 2002b; Roebers & Kauer, 2009). Three articles had good methodological quality and five articles had high methodological quality. Appendix 2.1 and Table 2 show weak evidence for a weak-to-moderate correlation between timed performance in movements and both IQ and fluid intelligence (Jenni et al., 2013; Kovač & Strel, 2000; Martin et al., 2010; Pangelinan et al., 2011; Planinsec, 2002a; Planinsec, 2002b). There was no evidence for a correlation between timed performance in movements and executive functions, spatial working memory, and academic skills (Nourbakhsh, 2006; Pangelinan et al., 2011; Roebers & Kauer, 2009). Within the category timed performance in movements, sequenced movements showed to be more strongly related to cognitive skills compared to repetitive movements (Jenni et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2010). Eight articles were included in the category object control (Castelli, 2006; Decker, Englund, Carboni, & Brooks, 2011; Livesey et al., 2006; Morales et al., 2011; Planinsec, 2002a; Planinšec & Pišot, 2006; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Rigoli et al., 2012b). One article had low methodological quality, two articles had good methodological quality and five articles had high methodological quality. Appendix 2.1 and Table 2 show strong evidence for a weak correlation between object control and visuospatial working memory (Decker et al., 2011; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Rigoli et al., 2012b). There was weak evidence for a weak correlation between object control and both fluid intelligence and working memory (Decker et al., 2011; Planinsec, 2002a; Planinšec & Pišot, 2006; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Rigoli et al., 2012b). Insufficient evidence was found for a correlation between object control and executive functions, verbal comprehension, and academic skills (Castelli, 2006; Livesey et al., 2006; Morales et al., 2011; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Rigoli et al., 2012b). There was no evidence for a correlation between object control and attention, knowledge, and quantitative reasoning (Decker et al., 2011; Rigoli et al., 2012a).

Five articles were included in the category total motor score (Davis et al., 2011b; Livesey et al., 2006; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Smits-Engelsman & Hill, 2012; Wassenberg et al., 2005). Two articles had good methodological quality and three articles had high methodological quality. Appendix 2.1 and Table 2 show weak evidence for no correlation between total motor score and executive functions (Livesey et al., 2006; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Wassenberg et al., 2005). There was insufficient evidence for a correlation between total motor score and working memory (Rigoli et al., 2012a; Wassenberg et al., 2005). No evidence was found for a correlation between total motor score and total cognitive score, attention, verbal comprehension, IQ, visual motor integration, and visual processing (Davis et al., 2011b; Rigoli et al., 2012a; Smits-Engelsman & Hill, 2012; Wassenberg et al., 2005).

(18)

37

Discussion

The aim of the present review was to give an overview of studies providing evidence for a relationship between motor and cognitive skills in 4–16-year-old typically developing children. Following the results, there is either no correlation in the literature, or insuffi cient evidence for or against many correlations between motor skills and cognitive skills. However, weak-to-strong evidence is found for some correlations between underlying categories of motor and cognitive skills, resulting in some interesting fi ndings: fi ne motor skills, bilateral body coordination, and timed performance in movements show the strongest relations with cognitive skills. However, balance and strength/agility were less related to cognitive skills. These fi ndings might be explained by the fact that the fi rst group of motor skills (fi ne motor skills, bilateral body coordination, and timed performance in movements) have a higher cognitive demand. The motor skills that show stronger relations to cognitive skills can be interpreted as complex motor skills and require higher-order cognitive skills (Best, 2010). The motor tasks that show lower relations to cognitive skills require less cognitive engagement in the tasks (Best, 2010). This is supported by a neuropsychological view; the relation between motor and cognitive skills is mediated by the co-activation of the cerebellum (important for complex and coordinated movements) and the prefrontal cortex (important for higher-order cognitive skills; Diamond, 2000).

Furthermore, there was weak evidence for a weak-to-moderate correlation between diff erent motor skills and fl uid intelligence and visual processing. Fluid intelligence is a higher-order complex cognitive skill and is important for performing complex motor movements (Best, 2010). Visual processing may be an important cognitive skill for performing motor tasks, as Koziol and Lutz (2013) argued that a child’s knowledge of motor skills is initially grounded in the process of sensorimotor anticipations and this represents the forerunner of the thinking that is required for executive functions. Their study demonstrates important relationships between movement, action control, and thinking.

Lastly, weak evidence was found for a stronger relationship between underlying categories of motor skills and cognitive skills (e.g. bilateral body coordination with fl uid intelligence, timed performance in movements with fl uid intelligence, and fi ne motor skills with academic skills) in prepubertal children compared to pubertal children (older than 13 years; Cameron et al., 2012; Planinsec, 2002b; Rigoli et al., 2012a). This fi nding supports the statement by Anderson et al. (2001) that motor skills and cognitive skills develop in equal stages in young children, with an accelerated development between 5 and 10 years old. However, when children get older, the motor skills and cognitive skills might begin to develop more separately.

A limitation of this review is that motor skills are classifi ed according to the articles that have been reviewed and are based on the most essential aspects. However, the distribution of the categories is still a point of discussion, since almost all motor skills contain elements of other categories and are not mutually exclusive. A strength of this review is that wide concepts of motor skills and cognitive skills were used which resulted in a detailed overview of the relationship between motor and cognitive skills. Furthermore, this review included mostly good or high methodological

A systematic review

(19)

38

quality studies. Therefore, some weak-to-strong evidence for or against relationships between underlying categories of motor and cognitive skills were found. However, there is either no correlation in the literature, or insufficient evidence for or against many correlations between motor skills and cognitive skills. There were some indications for correlations between different categories of motor and cognitive skills; however, there were insufficient articles to provide evidence. Future studies should investigate these correlations between motor and cognitive skills to get evidence for these relationships. Furthermore, in future studies it would be interesting to compare the level of evidence as well as the strength of relationships between typically developing children and special populations (e.g. children scoring higher/lower on motor and/or cognitive skills) and between different age categories.

Conclusions

The aim of the present review was to give an overview of studies providing evidence for a relationship between motor and cognitive skills in 4–16-year-old typically developing children. There is either no correlation in the literature, or insufficient evidence for or against many correlations between motor skills and cognitive skills. However, weak-to-strong evidence was found for some correlations between underlying categories of motor and cognitive skills. The only correlations that were found suggest the importance of complex motor skills and higher-order cognitive skills to explain correlations between motor and cognitive skills. Furthermore, this review shows stronger relationships between underlying categories of motor and cognitive skills in prepubertal children compared to pubertal children (older than 13 years).

The results of this review are interesting in the context of training programs focusing on optimizing motor and/or cognitive skills in children, as it would support the concept that interventions in one domain (motor or cognitive skills) may support development of both motor and cognitive skills, especially in prepubertal children. This is supported by a recent study by Westendorp et al. (2014). Following the results in this review, complex motor skills such as fine motor skills, coordination of movement in rhythm, and sequenced movements should be included in motor intervention programs to improve higher-order cognitive skills or vice versa.

(20)

39

Practical implications

The relationships between categories of motor and cognitive skills in typically developing children vary from weak-to-strong.

The strongest relationships have been found between complex motor skills and higher- order cognitive skills.

The strength of the relationships between motor and cognitive skills seems to decrease in pubertal children (>13 years).

Complex motor intervention programs could be developed in order to stimulate both motor and higher-order cognitive skills in children.

-A systematic review

2

(21)

(22)

41 A pp endix 2.1 Char ac teristics of the 21 ar ticles r evie w ed

2

Appendix 2.1

Characteristics of the 21 articles reviewed. Authors

(year) Sample size, gender Age (years) Measure(s) of motor skills Assessment of motor skills Measure(s) of cognitive skills Assessment of cognitive skills Results a Gross motor skills Cameron et al. (2012) 213, boys/girls 4 Gross motor skills ESI-R

Reading, verbal comprehension, mathematics, general knowledge, crystallized intelligence

WJ III, Word-reading, letter– word identification,

reading comprehension, passage comprehension, There were significant correlations between gross motor skills and reading (r = 0.17*), verbal comprehension (r = 0.16*), and mathematics (r = 0.18*). The correlations between gross motor skills and general knowledge and crystallized intelligence were not significant.

Davis et al. (2010) b 242, boys/girls, 4-11 Strength/ agility BOT-2

Visual processing, short-term memory, long- term

memory,

fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence

KABC-II Significant correlations were found between

strength/agility and visual processing (r = 0.32**),

short-term memory (r = 0.27**), long-term memory (r = 0.23**), fluid intelligence (r = 0.23**), and crystallized intelligence (r = 0.24**). Davis et al. (2011b) b 248, boys/girls 4-11 Strength/ agility BOT-2

memory, fluid intelligence, KABC-II Significant correlations were found between

strength/agility and visual processing (r = 0.32**),

short-term memory (r = 0.27**), long-term memory (r = 0.22**), and

crystallized intelligence (r = 0.24*). The correlation

between strength/agility and fluid intelligence was not significant.

(23)

42 crystallized intelligence Jenni et al. (2013) 252, boys/girls 7-1 6 Static and dynamical Balance ZNA General IQ, verbal IQ, performance IQ, visuomotor IQ WPPSI, WISC-R , AID

Katic & Bala (2012)

162,

girls

10

-1

4

Agility, jumping, sprinting, strength Cognitive capacity to encode and analyze information Raven’s SPM

Kovac & Strel (2000)

1859,

girls

10

-1

6

Strength/ agility, balance

Board balance, seated straddle stretch, standing broad jump, 20-m dash, medicine ball throw from supine position, crossed-arm sit-ups bent-arm hang ACDSi Fluid intelligence TN -2 0 Static balance was significantly related to general IQ (r = 0.20**), verbal IQ (r = 0.16*), performance IQ (r = 0.16*), and visuomotor IQ (r = 0.15*). The correlations between dynamical balance and all IQ score were not significant. In 10-12 year old children, cognitive functioning was implicated in their motor efficiency by agility. In 13-14 year old children, cognitive functioning was implicated in their motor efficiency by jumping, sprinting, agility, and trunk strength. The correlation between strength/agility and fluid intelligence in 10-16 year old girls was not significant, except for 12 year old girls (r = 0.26**). The correlation between balance and fluid intelligence was not significant, except for 11 year old girls (r = 0.29**). Livesey et al. (2006) 36, boys/girls 5-6 Balance MABC Executive functions Modified stop-signal task, Modified Day-night Stroop

task Balance was not significantly related to executive functions. Planinsec (2002a) 665, boys/girls 5-6 Strength and agility, balance Stepping sideways, running

with changing Fluid intelligence The Test Razkol

Strength and agility and balance did not significantly

contribute

to

fluid

(24)

43

2

Planinsec (2002b) 550, boys 10,12, 14

Trunk flexibility/ strength, shoulder flexibility, agility, balance directions, running in a zigzag, standing long jump, standing triple jump, standing high jump, stepping on a bench, sideway jumps, sideway jumps with hand support, standing on a

block, longitudinally standing

on a block crosswise, standing on a vertical block

Eurofit Test Battery Fluid intelligence TN -2 0 There were no significant relationships between the gross motor skills and fluid intelligence in 10 and 14 year old boys. In 12 year old boys, trunk flexibility and shoulder frame flexibility did significantly

contribute to fluid intelligence (resp. β = 0.18* and β = 0.15*).

c 93, boys/girls 12 -1 6 Balance MABC-2 WISC – IV, N-back task, NEPSY Balance did not show significant correlations with cognitive skills. Rigoli et al. (2012b) c 93, boys/girls 12 -1 6 Balance MABC-2

Attention, executive functions, working memory,

verbal

comprehension (Visuospatial) working

WIAT – II, WISC – IV, N-back task

(25)

44 0.26*) and not with the other cognitive skills. Roebers & Kauer (2009) 112, boys/girls 7 Jumping Jumping memory, academic skills,

verbal comprehension, executive functions Executive functions

The Backwards Colour Recall task, the Flanker task, the Simon task, the Cognitive Flexibility task Jumping showed significant positive correlations, only with 2 out of the 4 executive functions tests (Flanker: r = -0.26*; cognitive flexibility: r = -0.26*). Fine motor skills Cameron et al. (2012) 213, boys/girls 4 Fine motor skills ESI-R WJ III,

Word-reading, Reading comprehension, passage comprehension

Fine motor skills showed significant correlations with general knowledge (r = 0.16**), reading (r = 0.35**), verbal comprehension (r = 0.25**), mathematics (r = 0.17**), and crystallized intelligence (r = 0.19**). Davis et al. (2010) b 242, boys/girls 4-1 1

Fine manual control, manual dexterity

BOT-2

General knowledge, reading, verbal comprehension, mathematics, crystallized intelligence Visual processing, short-term memory, long- term

memory,

KABC-I I Significant correlations were found between fine manual control and visual processing (r = 0.54**), short-term memory (r = 0.36**), long-term memory (r = 0.27**), fluid intelligence (r = 0.41**), and crystallized intelligence (r = 0.40**). There were also

significant correlations between manual dexterity

and visual processing (r = 0.34**), short-term memory (r = 0.21**), and fluid intelligence (r = 0.23**). There were no

significant correlations between manual dexterity

and long-term memory and crystallized intelligence.

(26)

45

2

Davis et al. (2011b) b 248, boys/girls 4-1 1

Fine manual control, manual dexterity

BOT-2

memory,

KABC-I I Significant relations were found between fine manual control and visual processing (r = 0.54**), short-term memory (r = 0.36**), long-term memory (r = 0.27**), fluid intelligence (r = 0.40**) and crystallized intelligence (r = 0.40**). There were also

significant relations between manual dexterity

and visual processing (r = 0.34**)

and short-term memory (r = 0.20**), but not between manual dexterity and long- term

memory and crystallized intelligence. Livesey et al. (2006) 36, boys/girls 5-6

Fine manual control

MABC

Executive functions Modified stop-signal task, Modified Day-night Stroop

task Fine manual control was significantly related to executive functions (r = -0.36*). Morales et al. (2011) 487, boys/girls 9-1 6

Fine manual control

The Tower of Cubes test Oral skills, mathematics GABT, DAT

c 93, boys/girls 12 -1 6 Manual coordination MABC-2 Rigoli et al. (2012b) c 93, boys/girls 12 -1 6 Manual coordination MABC-2

Attention, executive functions (visuospatial) working memory,

verbal comprehension, academic skills WISC–IV, N-back task, NEPSY WIAT–II, WISC–IV, N-back task The correlations between fine motor skills and mathematics (r = -0.73*) and oral skills (r = -0.72*) were significant in 9-12 year old children. In the 13-16 age group, fine motor skills were also significantly correlated with mathematics (r = -0.64*) and oral skills (r = -0.74*). There was a significant correlation between manual coordination and attention (r = 0.52*) and executive functions (r = 0.23*). There were no significant correlations between manual coordination and the different cognitive skills.

(27)

46 Bilateral body coordination Davis et al. (2010) b 242, boys/girls 4-1 1 Body coordination BOT-2

memory,

KABC-I I There were significant correlations between body coordination and visual processing (r = 0.46**), short-term memory (r = 0.22**), long-term memory (r = 0.21**), fluid intelligence (r = 0.37**), and crystallized intelligence (r = 0.32**). Davis et al. (2011b) b 248, boys/girls 4-1 1 Body coordination BOT-2

memory,

KABC-I I Significant correlations were found between body coordination and visual processing (r = 0.41**), short-term memory (r = 0.23**), long-term memory (r = 0.22**), fluid intelligence (r = 0.39**), and crystallized intelligence (r = 0.34**).

Katic & Bala (2012)

162,

girls

10

-1

4

Muscle tone regulation, coordination

Steps

laterally,

Obstacle course backwards Cognitive capacity to encode and analyze information The Raven’s SPM

1859,

girls

10

-1

6

Coordination of movements in rhythm

ACDSi Fluid intelligence TN -2 0 Nourbakhsh (2006) 400, boys/girls 10 -1 1

General static coordination, general

The Oseretsky scale Academic skills A grade-point average of the final exams

(28)

47

2

dynamic coordination dynamic coordination and academic skills (r = 0.20**). Planinsec (2002a) 665, boys/girls 5-6 Body coordination Fluid intelligence The Test Razkol Body coordination significantly contributed

to fluid intelligence (boys: β = 0.41*; girls: β = 0.24*).

Planinsec (2002b)

550,

boys

10,12, 14

Coordination of movements in rhythm, body coordination, complex coordination movements

Walking

on

rungs backwards, walking

through

hoops backwards, polygon backward, crawling

under the bench, running after crawling Eurofit Test Battery Fluid intelligence TN -2 0

Coordination of movement in rhythm significantly contributed to fluid intelligence (10 years: β = 0.20*, 12 years: β = 0.22*, 14 years: β = 0.19*). Body coordination and complex coordination movements did not significantly contribute to fluid intelligence.

Planinsec & Pisot (2006) 550, boys 13

Body coordination, complex coordination movements, coordination of movements in rhythm, climbing

and descending ACDSi Fluid intelligence TN -2 0 The above average intelligence group scored significantly better on whole body coordination, complex coordination movements, and coordination of movements in rhythm. There were no significant differences between above and

below average intelligence groups in the motor

coordination test climbing and descending. Roebers & Kauer (2009) 112, boys/girls 6-9 Body coordination, The Postural flexibility

task

Executive functions The Backwards Color Recall task, the There were no signiﬁcant correlations between body coordination tasks, postural

(29)

48

postural flexibility, moving sideways

Flanker task, the Simon task, the Cognitive Flexibility task

flexibility, and moving sideways and executive functions.

Timed performance in movements Jenni et al. (2013) 252, boys/girls 7-1 6

Repetitive/ sequenced movements, hand-foot motor

tasks Speed of movement ZNA General IQ, verbal IQ, performance IQ, visuomotor IQ WPPSI, WISC-R, AID

1859, girls 10 -1 6 Speed of simple movements ACDSi Fluid intelligence TN -2 0 Correlations between sequenced finger movements and general IQ (r = 0.23**), verbal IQ (r = 0.20**), performance IQ (r = 0.16*), and visuomotor IQ (r = 0.22**) were systematically higher than those between repetitive finger movements and general IQ (r = 0.16*), verbal IQ (r = 0.13*), performance IQ (r = 0.11*), and visuomotor IQ (r = 0.15*). There were also significant correlations between hand-foot motor tasks and general IQ (r = 0.25**), verbal IQ (r = 0.21**), performance IQ (r = 0.16*), and visuomotor IQ (r = 0.22**). Correlations were found between the pegboard task and performance IQ (r = 0.31**), visuomotor IQ (r = 0.35**), and general IQ (r = 0.18*). There was no correlation between the pegboard task and verbal IQ. There was a significant relation between speed of simple movements and fluid intelligence in 11 year old girls (r = 0.27**) and in 12 year old girls (r = 0.26*). There were no significant relationships between speed of simple movements and fluid intelligence in 10 and 13-16 year old girls. Martin et al. (2010) 136, boys/girls 6-1 6 Repetitive/ PANESS General IQ, verbal IQ WISC-III, WISC-IV Verbal IQ added a significant proportion of

(30)

49

2

sequenced movements sequenced motor speed factor (R 2 = 0.02*).

For the repetitive factor, verbal IQ was not a significant

predictor

of

motor

speed,

after

controlling for age and sex. The same was found

for general IQ and repetitive/sequenced movements. Nourbakhsh (2006) 400, boys/girls 10 -1 1 Movement speed The Oseretsky scale Academic skills A grade-point average of the final exams There was no significant correlation between movement speed and academic skills. Pangelinan et al. (2001) 315, boys/girls 6-1 3 Speed of movement

The Purdue Pegboard bimanual

task

IQ, spatial working memory

WASI, CANTAB There was a significant correlation between

the pegboard task and IQ (r = 0.27**), but not between the pegboard task and spatial working

memory. Planinsec (2002a) 665, boys/girls 5-6 Speed of

simple/ complex movements Fluid intelligence The Test Razkol Speed of simple and complex movements significantly contributed to fluid

intelligence (resp. boys: β = 0.32*; girls: β = 0.28* and boys: β = 0.17*; girls: β = 0.25*).

Planinsec (2002b) 550, boys 10,12, 14 Speed of movement Hand tapping in two fields, foot tapping, hand tapping in four fields Eurofit Test Battery Fluid intelligence Speed of movement did not significantly contribute to fluid intelligence. Roebers & Kauer (2009) 112, boys/girls 6-9 Speed of movement The Pegboard task Executive functions TN -2 0 The Backwards Color Recall task, the Flanker task, the Simon task, the Cognitive Flexibility task

There was no signiﬁcant correlation between the pegboard task and executive functions.

Object control Castelli et al. (2006) 37, boys 7-1 2 Ball skills Basketball, bowling Executive functions The Stroop Color- Word

Task There was a significant relationship between balls skills and executive functions (r = 0.40**). Decker et al. (2011) 846, boys/girls 4-7 Copy, recall SB5 Fluid intelligence, Bender-Gestalt II Cognitive skills were tested verbally and

(31)

50

knowledge, quantitative reasoning, (visuospatial) working memory

(nonverbal/verbal)

correlations

between

copy and fluid intelligence (r = 0.19**/r = 0.20**),

knowledge (r = 0.20**/r = 0.18**),

quantitative reasoning (r = 0.25**/r = 0.30**), visuospatial working memory (r = 0.23**/r

= 0.24**), and working memory (r = 0.21**/r = 0.21**). There were also significant correlations (nonverbal/verbal) between the recall test and fluid intelligence (r = 0.25**/r = 0.24**), knowledge (r = 0.25**/r = 0.26**), quantitative reasoning (r = 0.29**/r = 0.34**), visuospatial working memory (r = 0.31**/r = 0.30**),

and working memory (r = 0.28**/r = 0.28**).

Livesey et al. (2006) 36, boys/girls 5-6 Ball skills MABC Executive functions Modified stop-signal task, Modified Day-night Stroop

task Ball skills were not significantly related to executive functions. Morales et al. (2011) 487, boys/girls 9-1 6 Ball skills

The Target- Throwing

test Oral skills, mathematics GABT, DAT Planinsec (2002a) 665, boys/girls 5-6 Object control

Rolling the ball around the hoop, crawling with a ball, circling the ball around the body, rolling the ball around the Fluid intelligence The Test Razkol There were significant correlations between ball skills test and mathematics (r = -0.44*) and oral skills (r = -0.34*) in 9-12 years old children. In the 13-16 age group, ball skills demonstrated much lower correlations with mathematics (r = -0.16*) and oral skills (r = -0.17*).

(32)

51

2

Planinsec & Pisot (2006) 550, boys 13 Object control feet, leading the ball with two hands in a

standing position, building

a tower from big foam rubber cubes, insertion into hollow cubes, building a tower from small wooden cubes ACDSi Fluid intelligence The above average intelligence group

scored significantly better on object control skills

(p

<

0.05).

c 93, boys/girls 12 -1 6 Ball skills MABC-2

The Pogačnik Test of Series WISC–IV,

N-back task, NEPSY Rigoli et al. (2012b) c 93, boys/girls 12 -1 6 Ball skills MABC-2

Attention, executive functions, (visuospatial) working memory,

verbal

comprehension (visuospatial) working memory, reading,

verbal

comprehension, spelling, mathematics

WIAT–II, WISC–IV, N-back task Ball skills were significantly related to working memory (r = 0.25**) and visuospatial working memory (r = 0.28**), but not to executive functions, attention, and verbal comprehension. There were significant correlations between ball skills and working memory (r = 0.25*), visuospatial working memory (r = 0.28**), reading (r = 0.28**), and mathematics (r = 0.23*). Balls skills were not related to verbal comprehension and spelling.