Abstract
Background:
Prolonged time on sedentary behavior, especially screen-based sitting time, is associated with unfavorable health indicators in children and adolescents. However, the effects of sedentary behavior on cognitive function remain to be elucidated.
Objective:
The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidence on the associations of sedentary behavior with executive function in children and adolescents.
Methods:
Four electronic databases (i.e., PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus) were searched for studies examining the associations between sedentary behavior and executive function in children and adolescents. Study quality was assessed by the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
Results:
A total of 1,151 records were initially identified through database searches and other searches. Twelve cross-sectional and four longitudinal studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the 16 studies, seven studies found significant negative associations between sedentary behavior and executive function, and two studies presented positive associations. Eight studies measured sedentary time using accelerometers and showed varied associations between objectively measured sedentary time and executive function. Nine studies measured screen-based sedentary behavior, of which five studies found negative associations of sedentary time with executive function.
Conclusion:
The available evidence on the associations between sedentary behavior and executive function is not conclusive in children and adolescents. However, screen-based sedentary behavior may be negatively associated with executive function.
Introduction
Sedentary behavior is a distinct construct from physical activity, referring to any waking behaviors with an energy expenditure of <1.5 metabolic equivalent units (METs) while in a sitting, reclining, or lying posture (1). Common sedentary behaviors include prolonged sitting, screen-based behaviors (e.g., TV viewing, computer/tablet using, video gaming), etc. Time spent on sedentary behaviors can be self/parent-reported or be objectively monitored by wearable devices such as accelerometers. Currently, sedentary time remains high in children and adolescents, and the trend continues to increase over the past few decades in some countries. According to the Global School-based Student Health Survey among 97 countries, about 25% of boys and girls aged 13–15 years old reported sitting longer than 3 h per day, in addition to sitting at school and for homework (2). From 2007 to 2016, the estimated total sitting time increased from 7 h per day to 8.2 h per day among adolescents in the United States (3). In China, an increasing trend of the prevalence of screen-based viewing time was also observed in school-age children (4).
Accumulating evidence showed that sedentary behavior, especially prolonged TV viewing, have been linked with increased risk of a variety of chronic diseases, such as obesity (5), type 2 diabetes (6, 7), cardiovascular diseases (8), and certain types of cancer (9). In children and adolescents, sedentary behaviors have also been linked with unfavorable health indicators, such as lower physical fitness (10), higher fatness (11), clustered cardiometabolic risk scores (12), and lower self-esteem (13). Even worse, emerging evidence has shown that excessive sedentary behaviors are associated with mental illness and poorer cognitive function (14, 15). However, the findings on the relationship between sedentary behavior and cognitive function are mixed. A systematic review included eight studies examining the associations of sedentary behavior with cognitive function in adults older than 40 years (15). It concluded that greater amounts of sedentary behaviors were associated with poorer cognitive function over the lifespan. A more recent systematic review including 13 cross-sectional and longitudinal studies suggested inconsistent evidence on the direction of the association of sedentary behavior with cognitive function in older adults with a mean age of 65+ years (16). Another systematic review in young children (≤5 years) found that different types of sedentary behavior may exert different influences on cognitive development (17). Screen time, particularly TV viewing, was either not associated with or negatively associated with cognitive skills. However, no existing studies have critically reviewed the literature of the association between sedentary behavior and executive function in children and adolescents.
Previous studies have shown that physical activity and fitness have beneficial effects on cognitive function in children and adolescents (18, 19). The effects are disproportionately larger for executive function (20). Executive function refers to a set of top-down mental processes needed for goal-directed behaviors, such as inhibitory control, working memory, cognitive flexibility, planning (21). Executive function is critical for school readiness, academic performance, and future career success (21, 22). However, evidence on the effects of sedentary behavior on executive function remains conflicting in children and adolescents. Some studies showed that sedentary behavior is not associated with executive function in childhood (23–25), whereas other studies found negative (26, 27) or positive associations (28). No existing systematic reviews have addressed this research gap. In addition, a preview review suggested a type-specific association between sedentary behavior and health indicators in children and adolescents (29). Another gap in the literature is the lack of the associations between type-specific sedentary behaviors and executive function.
Therefore, the current systematic review is aimed to synthesize the literature on the association of sedentary behavior (both objectively measured sedentary time and self/parent-reported screen-based behaviors) with executive function in children and adolescents.
Methods
This systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (30).
Search Strategy
Two authors (SL and JG) independently searched PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus from inception to April 2021. The combinations of the following three groups of retrieval items were used: (1) sedentary behavi*, screen time, sitting time, sedentary time, TV viewing, video gam*, computer use; (2) executive function, cognitive control, working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, planning; (3) children, adolescents. The specific search strategy was slightly adjusted according to the search builder of each database.
Study Selection
Two authors (SL and JG) screened all the retrieved titles and abstracts to exclude duplicate or irrelevant studies. The two authors screened the full text of the remaining studies after removing duplicate and apparently irrelevant studies. Any disagreements about the study selection were discussed with a third author (TH) until a consensus was reached. The two review authors also searched the bibliographies of all included articles to ensure that all relevant studies were captured. Only the longitudinal result was extracted for the cohort studies that conducted both cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses in the same population.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The studies must meet the following inclusion criteria to be included: (1) studies with cross-sectional or longitudinal design examined the associations between sedentary behavior and executive function; (2) sedentary behavior was self/parent-reported (e.g., prolonged sitting, TV viewing, computer use, video gaming) or objectively monitored by wearable devices (e.g., accelerometers); (3) executive function was objectively assessed (paradigms including Flanker task, Stroop color-word test, N-back task, Tower of London task, Trail making task, etc.); (4) the participants were apparently healthy children and adolescents aged 5–17 years; (5) studies must be published in peer-reviewed journals; (6) English full text must be available.
Studies were excluded if the sedentary behaviors were not clearly classified or measured. Studies focusing on specific screen-based or non-screen contents (e.g., violent films, educational programs), screen-based active behavior (e.g., active video gaming), or specific learning behavior (e.g., reading, puzzles) were excluded. Studies were also excluded if the executive function was parent- or teacher-reported.
Data Extraction
Data collection was conducted independently by two authors (SL and JG). Publication year, country, study design, sample size, covariates, measurement of sedentary behavior, assessment of executive function, and results were extracted from each included study and recorded.
Methodological Quality
The two authors assessed the quality of studies by the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies (31). This tool includes 14 items, and the reviewer could select “yes,” “no,” “cannot determine,” or “not reported” on each item. The score for longitudinal studies ranges from 0 (the lowest quality) to 14 (the highest quality). For cross-sectional studies, three items are not applicable (items 10, 12, 13). The classifications of methodological quality are rated as “strong” (≥80%), “good” (70–79%), “fair” (60–69%), or “poor” (<60%) based on the percentage scores which are calculated as the number of “yes” responses divided by the total number of applicable items (32, 33). All discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through discussion among the reviewers or with a third reviewer if needed. The items of assessment tool are listed in Supplementary Table 1.
Results
Search Results and Study Characteristics
A total of 1,149 records were identified through database searches, and additional two records were identified through reference list searches (see Figure 1). After removing duplicate records, 962 records remained. Following the screening of titles and abstracts, 37 articles were obtained for further full text review. Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria after detailed assessment of the full-text, including 12 cross-sectional studies and four longitudinal studies.
Figure 1
Sedentary behaviors were measured by subjective assessment (self-reported or parent-reported) and objective assessment (accelerometer). Eight studies objectively measured sedentary time using accelerometers (25, 27, 28, 34–38). Nine studies surveyed a variety of screen-based behaviors as proxies of sedentary behaviors (i.e., total screen time, TV viewing, computer gaming, other computer use, general computer use, etc.) (23, 24, 26, 37, 39–43).
Across these 16 studies, a total of 21 cognitive tasks were used, measuring various aspects of executive function, including inhibitory control, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and planning. Study sample sizes ranged from 77 to 1,001. The participants were aged 5–17 years old. The countries of study locations were Norway, China, South Africa, Canada, Spain, United States, United Kingdom, Finland, and the Netherlands.
Study Findings
Of the included 16 studies with objectively measured sedentary time or screen-based sedentary behavior, seven studies (44%) found a negative association between sedentary behavior and executive function (23, 24, 26, 27, 40, 41, 43), while two studies (13%) found a positive association between sedentary bahavior and executive function (28, 34).
Objectively Measured Sedentary Time and Executive Function
Of the eight studies with objectively measured sedentary time (25, 27, 28, 34–38), one study (13%) found that more sedentary time was associated with poorer inhibitory control (27). Two of the eight studies (25%) demonstrated a positive association of sedentary time with one or more aspects of executive functions (inhibitory control, working memory, and planning) (28, 34), including one longitudinal study (28). Six studies (75%) observed no associations between objectively measured sedentary time and certain aspects of executive functions (25, 27, 35–38).
Screen-Based Sedentary Behavior and Executive Function
Nine studies investigated the associations of screen-based sedentary behaviors (i.e., total screen time, TV viewing, computer/video gaming, other computer use) with executive function (23, 24, 26, 37, 39–43). Of the nine studies, five studies (56%) found negative associations between screen-based sedentary behavior and certain aspects of executive function (26, 37, 40, 41, 43). Of note, one of them employed longitudinal study design (26). Eight studies (89%) observed no associations between screen-based sedentary behavior and certain aspects of executive functions (23, 24, 26, 37, 39–42).
Of the nine studies, three studies assessed the total screen time (26, 37, 39). Two of these studies (66%) showed that total screen time was not associated with executive function (working memory, cognitive flexibility) (37, 39). Only one study (33%) observed a negative association between total screen time and N-back performance in girls (26). Seven studies examined the associations between TV viewing and executive function (23, 24, 26, 37, 40, 41, 43). Of them, two studies (29%) found that more time on TV viewing was associated with poorer executive function (40, 43), and five studies (71%) did not find any associations between TV viewing and executive function (23, 24, 26, 37, 41). Three studies examined the association between general computer usages with executive function (40–42). One study found a positive association (40) and one study found a negative association (41). Two studies examined the associations between computer/video gaming and executive function (26, 37). Both of them found that spending more time on computer/video gaming was related to worse working memory.
Methodological Quality of Included Studies
The average score of cross-sectional studies was 6.67 (Table 1). The average score of longitudinal studies was 10. Detailed scores of quality assessment are also available in Supplementary Table 1.
Table 1
| References, Country | Sample | Measurement of sedentary behavior | Measurement of executive function | Adjusted covariates | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1)N(% girls) (2) Age (years) | |||||
| Cross-sectional studies | |||||
| Aadland et al. (34) Norway | (1) 697 (51%) (2) 10.2 ± 0.3 | Accelerometer -Sedentary time | Stroop color-word test -Inhibitory control Digit span test -Working memory Verbal fluency & Trail making test -Cognitive flexibility | Age; body fat; pubertal status; birth weight; SES | Time on sedentary behavior was positively associated with working memory in girls, but with inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility in boys. |
| Chetty-Mhlanga et al. (39) South Africa | (1) 1,001 (53%) (2) 11 ± 1.7 | Self-reported -Total screen time | Spatial working memory test (CANTAB) -Working Memory Multi-tasking test (CANTAB) -Cognitive flexibility | Age; sex; area; head injury; smoke; alcohol; drugs; farm residence; SES; mobile phone ownership; mother employment; mother education; home language; household size; government grant; repeated grade | Total screen time was not associated with working memory and cognitive flexibility. |
| Fairclough et al. (38) United Kingdom | (1) 359 (51%) (2) 11.5 ± 1.4 | Accelerometer -Sedentary time | Spatial working memory test (CANTAB) -Working memory Multi-tasking test (CANTAB) -Inhibitory control Intra-Extra dimensional set shift task (CANTAB) -Cognitive flexibility | Age; sex; BMI z-score; IMD decile | Sedentary time was not associated with inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility. |
| Mora-Gonzalez et al. (25) Spain | (1) 79 (45%) (2) 10.2 ± 1.1 | Accelerometer -Sedentary time | Delayed non-matched-to-sample task -Working memory | Sex; age; wave of participation; peak height velocity; BMI; parent education; IQ | Sedentary time was not associated with working memory. |
| Mora-Gonzalez et al. (35) Spain | (1) 100 (42%) (2) 10.1 ± 1.1 | Accelerometer -Sedentary time | Stroop color-word test -Inhibitory control Zoo map task -Planning Design Fluency test and Trail making task -Cognitive flexibility | Sex; peak height velocity; BMI; wave of participation; parent education; IQ; MVPA | Sedentary time was not associated with inhibitory control, planning, and cognitive flexibility. |
| Mora-Gonzalez et al. (36) Spain | (1) 84 (44%) (2) 10.1 ± 1.1 | Accelerometer -Sedentary time | Flanker task -Inhibitory control | Sex; peak height velocity; BMI; parent education; IQ | Sedentary time was not associated with inhibitory control. |
| Ribner et al. (43) United States | (1) 807 (50%) (2) 5.7 ± 0.3 | Parent-reported -TV viewing | Hearts and flowers task Dimensional change card sort Flanker task -Working memory -Cognitive flexibility -Inhibitory control | Age; sex; performance on Raven's progressive matrices | TV viewing was negatively associated with composite executive function. |
| Rosenqvist et al. (40) United States | (1) 381 (55%) (2) 8.4 ± 2.3 | Parent-reported -TV viewing -General computer use | NEPSY-II -Inhibitory control | Age; sex; maternal education; other media variables | General computer use was not associated with inhibitory control. Negative association was observed between TV viewing and inhibitory control. |
| Syvaoja et al. (37) Finland | (1) 224 (57%) (2) 12.2 ± 0.6 | Self-reported -TV viewing -Computer/video gaming -Computer use (other than playing) Accelerometer -Sedentary time | Spatial span test -Working memory Intra-Extra dimensional set shift task -Cognitive flexibility | Parental education; remedial education; gender; MVPA | Objective sedentary time, total screen time or TV viewing were not associated with any measures of executive functions. Computer/video game playing was negatively associated with working memory, but not with cognitive flexibility. Computer use was negatively associated with cognitive flexibility. |
| van der Niet et al. (27) Netherland | (1) 77 (55%) (2) 8.9 ± 1.0 | Accelerometer -Sedentary time | Stroop color-word test -Inhibitory control Visual memory span test -Working memory Trail making task -Cognitive flexibility Tower of London task -Planning | Sex; age; SES | More time spent in sedentary behavior was associated with worse inhibitory control, but not to other aspects of executive functions. |
| Verburgh et al. (41) Netherland | (1) 168 (0%) (2) 8–12 | Self-reported -TV viewing -General Computer use | Stop signal task -Inhibitory control Digit span task -Working memory Flanker Task -Executive attention | Age; BMI; IQ | General computer use was negatively associated with inhibitory control, but not with working memory and cognitive flexibility. TV viewing was not associated with any aspects of executive functions. |
| Xu et al. (42) United Kingdom and China | (1) 371 (47%) (2) 12.2 ± 1.0 | Self-reported -General computer use | Stop signal task -Inhibitory control Figure matching task -Cognitive flexibility Spatial span task -Working memory Tower of Hanoi task -Planning | Age; general cognitive ability; family SES | General computer use was not associated with any aspects of executive functions. |
| Longitudinal studies | |||||
| Dubuc et al. (26) Canada | (1) 187 (62%) (2) baseline age: 13.1 ± 1.0 Follow-up age: 16.1 | Self-reported -Total screen time -TV viewing -Computer/video gaming -Computer use (other than game playing) | Flanker task -Inhibitory control N-back task -Working memory | Age; pubertal status; socioeconomic status; ethnicity | In female students, changes in total screen time and time on video games were negatively associated with changes in N-back accuracy. In male students, changes in screen time was not associated with performance on Flanker task and N-back task. |
| López-Vicente et al. (24) Spain | (1) 307 (51%) (2) baseline age: 6 follow-up age: 14 | Parent reported -TV viewing -Other sedentary behaviors | N-back task -Working memory | Age; sex; maternal education | TV viewing was not associated with working memory. Other sedentary behaviors were negatively associated with working memory. |
| O'Connor et al. (23) Spain | (1) 278 (49%) baseline age: 6, 9 (2) follow-up age: 14 | Parent-reported -TV viewing | N-back task -Working memory | Age; sex; BMI; parental education; parental social class | TV viewing was not associated with working memory. |
| Wickel, (28) United States | (1) 699 (48%) (2) baseline age: 9 follow-up age: 15 | Accelerometer -Sedentary time | Weinberger adjustment inventory -Inhibitory control Operation span task -Working memory Tower of London task -Planning | Ethnicity; change in PA; BMI z-score; SES | The increase in sedentary time from 9 to 15 years predicted higher inhibitory control, working memory, and planning. |
Characteristics and results table for included studies.
BMI, body mass index; CANTAB, Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery; IMD, Indices of Multiple Deprivation; IQ, intelligence quotient; PA, physical activity; MVPA, moderate to vigorous physical activity; SES: socioeconomic status.
Discussion
The present study was aimed to critically review the evidence on the association between sedentary behavior and executive function in children and adolescents. Out of the 16 studies, seven studies (44%) found a negative association between sedentary behavior and executive function, while two studies (13%) presented positive associations. Eight studies measured sedentary time using an accelerometer, and showed varied associations of objectively measured sedentary time with executive function. Nine studies measured screen-based sedentary behavior, of which five studies (56%) found negative associations of sedentary time with executive function.
Eight of the included studies objectively measured sedentary time. The current review presented mixed results regarding the associations between objectively measured sedentary time and executive function in children and adolescents. It is impossible to conclude of the direction of the association between objectively measured sedentary time and executive function. Our findings are inconsistent with a systematic review in older adults, which indicated that shorter objectively assessed sedentary time was associated with better global cognitive function (44). Although the accelerometer-based measurements provided an objectively assessed sedentary time, they cannot distinguish the types of sedentary behavior. Children and adolescents may engage in cognitively active sedentary behavior, such as reading, and learning, benefiting cognitive development (45). A study further supports this idea. Brain connectivity was positively correlated with reading time and negatively correlated with screen-based media time (46). Therefore, when it comes to the associations between sedentary behavior and executive function in childhood, the types of sedentary behavior should be considered.
In this systematic review, nine included studies surveyed screen-based sedentary behavior, which provided some evidence on the association between type-specific sedentary behavior and executive function in children and adolescents. The majority of evidence suggests that screen-based sedentary time has either no effects or a detrimental effect on executive function in children and adolescents. Recent evidence found that the deleterious effects of sedentary behavior on cardio-metabolic health are most notable for screen-based behaviors (47). Regarding mental health, a study showed that only leisure screen-based sedentary behaviors are linked to worse perceived stress and anxiety (48). In the current study, the negative associations of sedentary behavior with executive function are mainly observed in the included studies that measured screen-based sedentary behaviors (i.e., TV viewing, computer use, video games, total screen time). These findings are in line with the systematic review in early childhood. Specifically, the systematic review concluded that screen time was either not associated with or had detrimental associations with cognitive function in young children (17).
The biological plausibility for the observed negative association of screen-based sedentary behavior with executive function is not clear. There might be several potential explanations. First, most digital screens are backlit and emit blue light wavelengths. It can suppress melatonin secretion to influence sleep quality (49, 50), which may, in turns, affect brain health (51, 52). Second, sedentary behavior may increase the risk of some aspects of mental problems, such as depression (14), which may negatively influence cognitive development (53). Third, recent neuroimaging studies have linked screen-based sedentary behavior with brain structure and integrity, which further supports a detrimental effect of screen-based sedentary behavior. A study indicated that prolonged time on TV viewing was associated with lower gray matter volume in six brain regions in children (54). Increased screen-based media use was also associated with lower microstructural integrity of brain white matter in preschool-aged children (55).
Most of the included studies were of low to moderate quality. Of the 16 studies, four studies employed longitudinal study design, and only one study was rated as strong quality. Therefore, more studies with stronger design are warranted to further ascertain the effects of sedentary behavior on cognitive function in childhood. In addition, previous studies have suggested that physical activity and exercise were positively associated with executive function in children and adolescents (18, 56). Sedentary behavior may also correlate with physical activity considering the 24-h movement continuum. However, of the 16 studies, most studies did not consider physical activity as a potential covariate. The results may have been subjected to residual confounding. Future studies should consider physical activity as covariates or investigate the combined effects of sedentary behavior and physical activity.
Although the conflicting results exist, this systematic review provided preliminary evidence which supports a negative association between screen-based sedentary behavior and executive function in children and adolescents. Therefore, from the perspective of children's physical health and cognitive development, families, schools, and policymakers should consider interventions for reducing and limiting screen-based sedentary behavior in childhood.
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to systematically review the associations between sedentary behavior and executive function in children and adolescents. However, this study also has its limitations. First, a meta-analysis cannot be carried out due to the heterogeneities in study design and outcome measurements of the included studies. Second, all of the included studies were observational in design, and there was no intervention study. Therefore, the causal relationship between sedentary behavior and executive function cannot be inferred. Third, the searching language was limited to English, which increases the risk of omitting important studies published in other languages.
Conclusion
The study suggests that the associations between sedentary behavior and executive function are not conclusive in children and adolescents. However, time on screen-based sedentary behavior tends to be negatively associated with executive function.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author contributions
SL and TH: conceptualization, writing, and original draft preparation. SL, TH, KZ, and JG: methodology and validation. SL and JG: formal analysis. SL, MS, and JG: resources. SL, JG, and MS: data curation. SL, KZ, and TH: writing—review and editing. TH: supervision and project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Jiali Qian for reading the manuscript and providing feedback.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.832845/full#supplementary-material
References
1.
TremblayMSAubertSBarnesJDSaundersTJCarsonVLatimer-CheungAEet al. Sedentary behavior research network (SBRN) - terminology consensus project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. (2017) 14:75. 10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8
2.
van SluijsEMFEkelundUCrochemore-SilvaIGutholdRHaALubansDet al. Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: current evidence and opportunities for intervention. Lancet. (2021) 398:429–42. 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01259-9
3.
YangLCaoCKantorEDNguyenLHZhengXParkYet al. Trends in sedentary behavior among the us population, 2001–2016. JAMA. (2019) 321:1587–97. 10.1001/jama.2019.3636
4.
CaiYJZhuXHWuXP. Overweight, obesity, and screen-time viewing among Chinese school-aged children: national prevalence estimates from the 2016 physical activity and fitness in china-the youth study. J Sport Health Sci. (2017) 6:404–9. 10.1016/j.jshs.2017.09.002
5.
DeMattiaLLemontLMeurerL. Do interventions to limit sedentary behaviours change behaviour and reduce childhood obesity? A critical review of the literature. Obes Rev. (2007) 8:69–81. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00259.x
6.
HamiltonMTHealyGNDunstanDWZdericTWOwenN. Too little exercise and too much sitting: inactivity physiology and the need for new recommendations on sedentary behavior. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep. (2008) 2:292–8. 10.1007/s12170-008-0054-8
7.
HamiltonMTHamiltonDGZdericTW. Role of low energy expenditure and sitting in obesity, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Diabetes. (2007) 56:2655–67. 10.2337/db07-0882
8.
FordESCaspersenCJ. Sedentary behaviour and cardiovascular disease: a review of prospective studies. Int J Epidemiol. (2012) 41:1338–53. 10.1093/ije/dys078
9.
LynchBM. Sedentary behavior and cancer: a systematic review of the literature and proposed biological mechanisms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. (2010) 19:2691–709. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0815
10.
GrayCGibbonsRLaroucheRSandseterEBBienenstockABrussoniMet al. What is the relationship between outdoor time and physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and physical fitness in children? A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2015) 12:6455–74. 10.3390/ijerph120606455
11.
MustATyborDJ. Physical activity and sedentary behavior: a review of longitudinal studies of weight and adiposity in youth. Int J Obes. (2005) 29:S84–96. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803064
12.
AtkinAJEkelundUMollerNCFrobergKSardinhaLBAndersenLBet al. Sedentary time in children: influence of accelerometer processing on health relations. Med Sci Sport Exer. (2013) 45:1097–104. 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318282190e
13.
SuchertVHanewinkelRIsenseeB. Sedentary behavior and indicators of mental health in school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic review. Prev Med. (2015) 76:48–57. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.03.026
14.
LiuMWuLYaoS. Dose-response association of screen time-based sedentary behaviour in children and adolescents and depression: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Br J Sports Med. (2016) 50:1252–8. 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095084
15.
FalckRSDavisJCLiu-AmbroseT. What is the association between sedentary behaviour and cognitive function? A systematic review. Br J Sports Med. (2017) 51:800–11. 10.1136/bjsports-2015-095551
16.
OlanrewajuOStockwellSStubbsBSmithL. Sedentary behaviours, cognitive function, and possible mechanisms in older adults: a systematic review. Aging Clin Exp Res. (2020) 32:969–84. 10.1007/s40520-019-01457-3
17.
CarsonVKuzikNHunterSWiebeSASpenceJCFriedmanAet al. Systematic review of sedentary behavior and cognitive development in early childhood. Prev Med. (2015) 78:115–22. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.07.016
18.
XueYYangYXHuangT. Effects of chronic exercise interventions on executive function among children and adolescents: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. (2019) 53:1397–404. 10.1136/bjsports-2018-099825
19.
DonnellyJEHillmanCHCastelliDEtnierJLLeeSTomporowskiPet al. Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic achievement in children: a systematic review. Med Sci Sport Exer. (2016) 48:1223–4. 10.1249/Mss.0000000000000966
20.
ChaddockLPontifexMBHillmanCHKramerAF. A review of the relation of aerobic fitness and physical activity to brain structure and function in children. J Int Neuropsych Soc. (2011) 17:975–85. 10.1017/S1355617711000567
21.
DiamondA. Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol. (2013) 64:135–68. 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
22.
MagalhaesSCarneiroLLimpoTFilipeM. Executive functions predict literacy and mathematics achievements: the unique contribution of cognitive flexibility in grades 2, 4, and 6. Child Neuropsychol. (2020) 26:934–52. 10.1080/09297049.2020.1740188
23.
O'ConnorGPinero CasasMBasaganaXVicenteMLDavandPTorrentMet al. Television viewing duration during childhood and long- association with adolescent neuropsychological outcomes. Prev Med Rep. (2016) 4:447–52. 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.08.013
24.
López-VicenteMGarcia-AymerichJTorrent-PallicerJFornsJIbarluzeaJLertxundiNet al. Are early physical activity and sedentary behaviors related to working memory at 7 and 14 years of age?J Pediatr. (2017) 188:35–41. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.05.079
25.
Mora-GonzalezJEsteban-CornejoICadenas-SanchezCMiguelesJHRodriguez-AyllonMMolina-GarcíaPet al. Fitness, physical activity, working memory, and neuroelectric activity in children with overweight/obesity. Scand J Med Sci Sports. (2019) 29:1352–63. 10.1111/sms.13456
26.
DubucMMAubertin-LeheudreMKarelisAD. Lifestyle habits predict academic performance in high school students: the adolescent student academic performance longitudinal study (ASAP). Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 17:243. 10.3390/ijerph17010243
27.
van der NietAGSmithJScherderEJAOosterlaanJHartmanEVisscherC. Associations between daily physical activity and executive functioning in primary school-aged children. J Sci Med Sport. (2015) 18:673–7. 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.09.006
28.
WickelEE. Sedentary time, physical activity, and executive function in a longitudinal study of youth. J Phys Act Health. (2017) 14:222–8. 10.1123/jpah.2016-0200
29.
CarsonVHunterSKuzikNGrayCEPoitrasVJChaputJPet al. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth: an update. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. (2016) 41:240–65. 10.1139/apnm-2015-0630
30.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDGGroupP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. (2009) 6:e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
31.
National Heart Lung Blood Institute. Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Available online at: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools (accessed May 5, 2014).
32.
SangsawangBWacharasinCSangsawangN. Interventions for the prevention of postpartum depression in adolescent mothers: a systematic review. Arch Womens Ment Health. (2019) 22:215–28. 10.1007/s00737-018-0901-7
33.
MusshafenLATyroneRSAbdelazizASims-GomilliaCEPongettiLSTengFet al. Associations between sleep and academic performance in US adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med. (2021) 83:71–82. 10.1016/j.sleep.2021.04.015
34.
AadlandKNMoeVFAadlandEAnderssenSAResalandGKOmmundsenY. Relationships between physical activity, sedentary time, aerobic fitness, motor skills and executive function and academic performance in children. Ment Health Phys Act. (2017) 12:10–8. 10.1016/j.mhpa.2017.01.001
35.
Mora-GonzalezJEsteban-CornejoICadenas-SanchezCMiguelesJHMolina-GarciaPRodriguez-AyllonMet al. Physical fitness, physical activity, and the executive function in children with overweight and obesity. J Pediatr. (2019) 208:50–6. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.12.028
36.
Mora-GonzalezJEsteban-CornejoISolis-UrraPMiguelesJHCadenas-SanchezCMolina-GarciaPet al. Fitness, physical activity, sedentary time, inhibitory control, and neuroelectric activity in children with overweight or obesity: the activebrains project. Psychophysiology. (2020) 57:e1359. 10.1111/psyp.13579
37.
SyvaojaHJTammelinTHAhonenTKankaanpaaAKantomaaMT. The associations of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time with cognitive functions in school-aged children. PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e103559. 10.1371/journal.pone.0103559
38.
FaircloughSJTylerRDaintyJRDumuidDRichardsonCShepstoneLet al. Cross-sectional associations between 24-hour activity behaviours and mental health indicators in children and adolescents: a compositional data analysis. J Sports Sci. (2021) 39:1–13. 10.1080/02640414.2021.1890351
39.
Chetty-MhlangaSFuhrimannSEeftensMBaseraWHartingerSDalvieMAet al. Different aspects of electronic media use, symptoms and neurocognitive outcomes of children and adolescents in the rural western cape region of south africa. Environ Res. (2020) 184:e109315. 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109315
40.
RosenqvistJLahti-NuuttilaPHoldnackJKempSLLaasonenM. Relationship of tv watching, computer use, and reading to children's neurocognitive functions. J Appl Dev Psychol. (2016) 46:11–21. 10.1016/j.appdev.2016.04.006
41.
VerburghLScherderEJVan LangePAOosterlaanJ. Do elite and amateur soccer players outperform non-athletes on neurocognitive functioning? A study among 8-12 year old children. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0165741. 10.1371/journal.pone.0165741
42.
XuCEllefsonMRNgFFWangQHughesC. An east-west contrast in executive function: measurement invariance of computerized tasks in school-aged children and adolescents. J Exp Child Psychol. (2020) 199:e104929. 10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104929
43.
RibnerAFitzpatrickCBlairC. Family socioeconomic status moderates associations between television viewing and school readiness skills. J Dev Behav Pediatr. (2017) 38:233–9. 10.1097/dbp.0000000000000425
44.
RojerAGMRamseyKAAmaral GomesESD'AndreaLChenCSzoekeCet al. Objectively assessed physical activity and sedentary behavior and global cognitive function in older adults: a systematic review. Mech Ageing Dev. (2021) 198:e111524. 10.1016/j.mad.2021.111524
45.
SweetserPJohnsonDOzdowskaAWyethP. Active versus passive screen time for young children. Aust J Early Childhood. (2012) 37:94–8. 10.1177/183693911203700413
46.
Horowitz-KrausTHuttonJS. Brain connectivity in children is increased by the time they spend reading books and decreased by the length of exposure to screen-based media. Acta Paediatr. (2018) 107:685–93. 10.1111/apa.14176
47.
BarnettTAKellyASYoungDRPerryCKPrattCAEdwardsNMet al. Sedentary behaviors in today's youth: approaches to the prevention and management of childhood obesity: a scientific statement from the american heart association. Circulation. (2018) 138:E142–E59. 10.1161/Cir.0000000000000591
48.
Felez-NobregaMBort-RoigJBrionesLSanchez-NiuboAKoyanagiAPuigoriolEet al. Self-reported and Activpal(TM)-monitored physical activity and sedentary behaviour in college students: not all sitting behaviours are linked to perceived stress and anxiety. J Sports Sci. (2020) 38:1566–74. 10.1080/02640414.2020.1748359
49.
BrainardGCHanifinJPGreesonJMByrneBGlickmanGGernerEet al. Action spectrum for melatonin regulation in humans: evidence for a novel circadian photoreceptor. J Neurosci. (2001) 21:6405–12. 10.1162/08989290152541494
50.
ThapanKArendtJSkeneDJ. An action spectrum for melatonin suppression: evidence for a novel non-rod, non-cone photoreceptor system in humans. J Physiol. (2001) 535:261–7. 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.t01-1-00261.x
51.
CajochenCFreySAndersDSpatiJBuesMProssAet al. Evening exposure to a light-emitting diodes (led)-backlit computer screen affects circadian physiology and cognitive performance. J Appl Physiol. (2011) 110:1432–8. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00165.2011
52.
AribisalaBSRihaRLHernandezMVManiegaSMCoxSRadakovicRet al. Sleep and brain morphological changes in the eighth decade of life. Sleep Med. (2020) 65:152–8. 10.1016/j.sleep.2019.07.015
53.
WagnerSMullerCHelmreichIHussMTadicA. A meta-analysis of cognitive functions in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2015) 24:5–19. 10.1007/s00787-014-0559-2
54.
Zavala-CrichtonJPEsteban-CornejoISolis-UrraPMora-GonzalezJCadenas-SanchezCRodriguez-AyllonMet al. Association of sedentary behavior with brain structure and intelligence in children with overweight or obesity: the activebrains project. J Clin Med. (2020) 9:1101. 10.3390/jcm9041101
55.
HuttonJSDudleyJHorowitz-KrausTDeWittTG. Holland SK. Associations between screen-based media use and brain white matter integrity in preschool-aged children. JAMA Pediatr. (2020) 174:509. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0480
56.
Liu SJ YuQLiZMCunhaPMZhangYKongZWet al. Effects of acute and chronic exercises on executive function in children and adolescents: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:3482. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.554915
Summary
Keywords
sedentary behavior, screen time, executive function, children, adolescents
Citation
Li S, Guo J, Zheng K, Shi M and Huang T (2022) Is Sedentary Behavior Associated With Executive Function in Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review. Front. Public Health 10:832845. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.832845
Received
10 December 2021
Accepted
07 January 2022
Published
02 February 2022
Volume
10 - 2022
Edited by
Fahad Hanna, Torrens University Australia, Australia
Reviewed by
Qi-qiang He, Wuhan University, China; Justin B. Moore, Wake Forest School of Medicine, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Li, Guo, Zheng, Shi and Huang.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tao Huang taohuang@sjtu.edu.cn
This article was submitted to Public Health Education and Promotion, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.