HIIT did not selectively influence online or offline learning subcomponents relative to active control¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Independent-samples comparisons found no group differences for online or offline periods (online d = 0.28, p = .33; offline d = 0.08, p = .78). → Brooks 2026

Evidence¶

Brooks 2026¶

Brooks, E., Hawi, Z., Hosler, J. et al. (2026). High-intensity cardiovascular exercise facilitates online motor skill learning, with no effect of BDNF genotype. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00432-8

q2 · i? · causal · r?

Independent-samples t-tests comparing HIIT and active control groups on online and offline learning subcomponents in the 51-participant experiment; "no significant differences between groups" on either subcomponent, so equivalence was not tested.

"There were no significant differences between groups for either the online periods (HIIT: M = 4.03, SD = 5.14; active control: M = 2.67, SD = 4.66), t(49) = -0.99, p = .33, d = 0.28, or the offline periods (HIIT: M = -0.96, SD = 4.52; active control: M = -0.59, SD = 4.69), t(49) = 0.28, p = .78, d = 0.08"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• HIIT participants achieved greater total SVIPT learning than active controls over the session (d = 0.58) — related
• A preceding bout of HIIT exercise produced no detectable difference in micro-consolidation of an implicit motor sequence learned in close temporal proximity to exercise — related
• A preceding HIIT bout enhances skill acquisition on a novel visuomotor task relative to an active control, with group differences emerging from Block 4 of practice — related
• The HIIT and active control exercise conditions were physiologically distinct, confirming the intended exercise manipulation — related