Evaluating the efficacy of an iPad® app in determining a single bout of exercise benefit to executive function

Abstract

We examined the efficacy and feasibility of an iPad® app used at-home in identifying a postexercise benefit to executive function. The iPad® app required simple reaching movements mirror-symmetrical to an exogenously presented target (i.e., antipointing) and is a task that lab-based behavioral and neuroimaging work has shown to provide a valid measure of the response inhibition component of executive function. Fifty English-speaking individuals (18 female, age range 18–26 years of age) completed the iPad® app before and immediately after a 20-min session of heavy-intensity aerobic exercise, and on a separate day completed the app prior to and following a 20-min non-exercise control condition. Results showed antipointing reaction times (RTs) in the exercise condition decreased by an average of 18 ms postexercise ( p < 0.001) with an observed large effect size (d z = 0.90), whereas control condition pre- and post-assessment RTs did not reliably differ ( p = 0.12, d z = 0.22) and were within an equivalence boundary ( p < 0.005). Further, pre-assessment exercise and control condition antipointing RTs were within an equivalence boundary ( p < 0.05). Accordingly, a simple iPad® app provides the requisite resolution to detect subtle executive function benefits derived from a single bout of exercise.

Passive exercise provides a simultaneous and postexercise executive function benefit

“…Hence, across the control, passive and active exercise conditions nine EF assessments were completed. Pro-and antipointing trials were completed on a computer tablet (12.9′inch iPad R Pro, OSX v. 15.6.1) running a custom-built app (XCode developed via Swift; v. 5.3 Apple Inc, Cupertino CA) operating at a native screen and touch resolution of 60 Hz (for details see, Tari and Heath, 2021). Participants were instructed on the nature of pro-and antipointing trials by the experimenters.…”

“…Pro-and antipointing dependent variables included RT (i.e., time from target onset to release of pressure from home location), movement time (MT: i.e., time from release of pressure from home location to a touch of the tablet screen) and horizontal endpoint gain variability (i.e., within-participant standard deviation of movement amplitude/veridical target amplitude). As per previous work (Maraj and Heath, 2010;Tari and Heath, 2021) RTs < 150 ms (i.e., anticipatory response) or 2.5 times a participantand task-specific mean were excluded as were trials involving a directional error (i.e., a propointing response instead of an instructed antipointing response and vice versa). In turn, trials involving a MT <100 ms or 2.5 times a participant-and taskspecific mean were excluded.…”