Table 1 Study characteristics

Giordano & Alesi (2022), Italy [38]

N = 75 (39 boys; M_age = 5.68 ± 0.32 yrs)

Intervention: n = 25

Control1: n = 25

Control2: n = 25

Setting; kindergarten

Type; PA: Cognitively engaging PA (inhibiting previously learned movements, i.e., replacing walking on tiptoe with walking on heels)

Dosage; 20 min/sessions, 3 sessions/week for 6 weeks

C1: Free play

C2: maintained regular activity

Executive function (EF: motor and cognitive inhibition)

DNST; HSKT; GW; SD

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater improvement in DNST reaction time, HSKT accuracy, and GW reaction time

Hudson et al. (2021), USA [39]

N = 53 (n = 22 boys); M_age = 4.3 ± 0.6 yrs

Intervention: n = 27

Control: n = 26

Setting; early childhood education center

Type; PA: Gross motor skills (i.e., jumping) and fine motor skills

Dosage; 30 min/session, 2 sessions/week for 8 weeks

Maintained regular activity

EF (inhibitory control, working memory, attention shifting, reaction time); early numeracy skills

EFT; Woodcock-Johnson IV: Applied problems subtest

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater improvement in overall EF, inhibitory control, and numeracy skills

Jarraya et al. (2019),

Tunisia [40]

N = 45 (17 boys; M_age = 5.2 ± 0.4 yrs)

Intervention1: n = 15

Intervention2: n = 15

Control: n = 15

Setting; kindergarten

Type; PA1: Yoga

PA2: Generic PE

Dosage; 30 min/session, 2 sessions/week for 12 weeks

No PA

Visual attention (attention/EF, language, memory and learning, sensorimotor functions, and visuospatial processing) and

Visual-motor precision (language, memory and learning, sensorimotor functions, and visuospatial processing, social perception, hyperactivity/impulsivity)

NEPSY-Visual Attention Test; NEPSY-II - Visuomotor Precision Test

Identified statistically significant differences between the IG and CG, with the Yoga showing greater improvement in visual attention, accompanied by a decrease in hyperactivity and inattention

Jarraya et al. (2022), Tunisia [41]

N = 52 (26 boys; M_age = 5.4 ± 0.2 yrs)

Intervetnion1: n = 18

Intervetnion2: n = 17

Control: n = 17

Setting; kindergarten

Type; PA1: Progressive muscle relaxation (PMR)

PA2: Generic PE

Dosage; 30 min/session, 2 sessions/week for 12 weeks

Free play

Attention and EF (memory, visuomotor precision, motor inhibition)

NEPSY-II - Visuomotor Precision Test; NEPSY-II - Statue Test; TBCT; RSFT

Identified statistically significant differences between the IG and CG, with the PMR showing greater improvement in attention time, attention score, visuomotor precision time error rates memorization, and motor inhibition

Liu et al. (2022), China [42]

N = 48 (23 boys; M_age = 4.90 ± 0.31 yrs)

Intervention: n = 24

Control: n = 24

Setting; preschool

Type; PA: Exergame dance movements

Dosage; 30 min/session, 4 sessions/week for 4 weeks

Standard PE

EF (inhibition, working memory, shifting)

Early Years Toolbox (“Go/No-Go”; “Mr Ant”; “Card Sorting”)

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater improvement in all three EF tasks

Mulvey et al. (2018), USA [43]

N = 107 (51 boys; M_age=5.14 ± 0.81 yrs)

Intervention: n = 50

Control: n = 57

Setting; preschool

Type; PA: Successful Kinesthetic Instruction for Preschoolers (SKIP) program that aims to promote gross motor intervention (e.g., run, jump, leap, hop, gallop, slide, throw, catch, kick, dribble, strike, and roll)

Dosage; 30 min/session, 2 sessions/week for 6 weeks

Maintained regular activity

EF (inhibitory control, working memory, and attentional focusing)

HTKS

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater improvement in EF

Shen et al. (2020),

China [44]

N = 60 (30 boys; M_age = 4.37 ± 0.33 yrs)

Intervention: n = 30

Control: n = 30

Setting; kindergarten

Type; PA: Street-dance training

Dosage; 40–50 min/session, 3 sessions/week for 8 weeks

Maintained regular activity

EF (response inhibition, executive attention, cognitive flexibility, working memory)

“Go/No-Go”; ANT; DCCS; BDS

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater improvement in working memory, inhibition control, and cognitive flexibility tasks

Wen et al. (2018), China [45]

N = 57 (31 boys; M_age = 4.4 ± 0.29 yrs)

Intervention: n = 29

Control: n = 28

Setting; preschool

Type; PA: Trampoline training program

Dosage; 20 min/session, 5 sessions/week for 10 weeks

Maintained regular activity

EF (cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, working memory)

“Go/No-Go”; SCA; FIS;

WMS

No statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups

cRCTs = 14

Alesi et al. (2021), Italy [46]

N = 174 (97 boys; M_age = 5.21 ± 0.45 yrs)

Intervention: n = 110

Control: n = 64

Setting; kindergarten

Type; PA: Gross motor skills (i.e., kicking) and fine motor skills ( i.e., copying shapes)

Dosage; 60 min/session, 3 sessions/week for 10 weeks

Maintained regular school activities

Pre-literacy skills (linguistic understanding, oral expression, metacognition, cognitive abilities, reading/writing, math)

IPDA

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater improvement in linguistic comprehension, oral expression, metacognition, and other cognitive skills

Bai et al. (2022), China [47]

N = 62 (39 boys; M_age = 4.44 ± 0.46 yrs)

Intervention: n = 30

Control: n = 32

Setting; preschool

Type; PA: EF-focused exercise games: ‘Do the Opposite’ (opposite action), ‘Piggy Builds House’ (following instructions to build a house), ‘Flip the Cards’ (memory plus following motor instructions), soccer

Dosage; 50 min/session, 3 sessions/week for 8 weeks

Maintained regular activity

EF (inhibitory control, working memory, shifting)

SSS; EH; DCCS

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater improvement in inhibitory control, working memory, and shifting

Burkhart et al. (2018), USA [48]

N = 71 (M_age=3.8 ± 0.7 yrs)

Intervention: n = 43

Control: n = 28

Setting; preschool

Type; PA: Locomotor-based PA (running, hopping, skipping, galloping, sliding)

Dosage; 30 min/session, 5 sessions/week for 24 weeks

Free play

Adaptive learning behaviors (hyperactivity, inattention); Inhibitory control

BASC-2; “Go/No-Go”

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing a greater decline in hyperactivity and a more pronounced improvement in attention

Ellis et al. (2019), Australia [49]

N = 115 (51 boys; 4.1 ± 0.7 yrs)

Intervention: n = 55

Control: n = 60

Setting; childcare

Type; SB: Reduce sitting time (height adjustable

standing table/

easel; movement

breaks, active story time, active mealtimes, standing when children do not want to nap)

Dosage; 12 weeks

Maintained regular activity

EF (inhibition, working memory, shifting)

Early Years Toolbox (“Go/No-Go”; “Mr Ant”;

“Card Sorting”)

No statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups

Mavilidi et al. (2015), Australia [50]

N = 111 (64 boys; M_age=4.94 ± 0.56 yrs)

Intervention1: n = 31

Intervention2: n = 23

Control1: n = 31

Control2: n = 36

Setting; childcare

Type; PA1: Integrated PA (actions indicated by the vocabulary word such as running and flapping hands for ‘fly’)

PA2: Non-integrated PA (exercise unrelated to vocabulary word (such as running or walking regardless off vocabulary word)

Dosage; 15 min/session, 2 sessions/week for 4 weeks

C1: Gesture (seated actions indicated by vocabulary word)

C2: Conventional learning (verbally learning words without movement)

Memory performance (foreign language vocabulary learning)

Free recall test;

Cued recall test

Identified statistically significant differences between the IG and CG, with the integrated PA showing greater improvement in free recall than all other groups, and in cued recall than CG groups

Mavilidi et al. (2017), Australia [51]

N = 90 (45 boys; M_age = 4.90 ± 0.52 yrs)

Intervention1: n = 30

Intervention2: n = 27

Control: n = 29

Setting; childcare

Type; PA1: Integrated PA (ran from ‘planet to planet’, children learned the names of the planets and their order, based on the distance from the sun)

PA2: Nonintegrated PA (running around room)

Dosage; 10 min/session, one session/week for 4 weeks

Conventional learning: seated, observing planets during lesson

Science knowledge

Free recall test;

Cued recall test

Identified statistically significant differences between the IG and CG, with the integrated PA showing greater improvement in learning outcomes

Mavilidi et al. (2018), Australia [52]

N = 120 (63 boys; M_age = 4.70 ± 0.49 yrs)

Intervention1: n = 30

Intervention2: n = 29

Control1: n = 29

Control2: n = 27

Setting; childcare

Type; PA1: Integrated PA (ran, jumped, and stepped on numbers)

PA2: Non-integrated PA (task unrelated PA)

Dosage; 15 min/session, one session/week for 4 weeks

C1: Conventional sedentary teaching

C2: Observing peers complete integrated PA while seated

Numeracy skills

Counting, number line estimation, block counting, numerical magnitude comparison, numerical identification

Identified statistically significant differences between the IG and CG, with the integrated PA showing greater improvement in math performance

Mavilidi et al. (2023), Australia [53]

N = 144 (79 boys; M_age = 4.41 ± 0.61 yrs)

Intervention1: n = 55

Intervention2: n = 48

Control: n = 41

Setting; childcare

Type; PA1: Cognitively engaging PA (storytelling, cognitive activities, and motor tasks)

PA2: Non-PA (storytelling and cognitive activities without motor tasks)

Dosage; 15 min/session, two sessions/week for 6 weeks

Traditional storytelling

EF (inhibition, shifting, working memory); Self-regulation; Numeracy skills

Early Years Toolbox (“Go/No-Go”; “Mr Ant”;

“Card Sorting”); SDQ; counting and numerical magnitude comparison tasks

No statistically significant differences were identified between the IG and CG

Miller et al. (2022), USA [54]

N = 116 (48 boys; M_age = 4.45 ± 0.61 yrs)

Intervention: n = 70

Control: n = 46

Setting; Head Start

Type; PA: Children’s Health Activity Motor Program [CHAMP]

Dosage; 3 days/week

16 weeks (48 sessions,

45 min/session, total dose = 2160 min)

Outdoor recess

Behavioral aspects of self-regulation; Cognitive aspects of self-regulation (working memory and cognitive flexibility)

HTKS; Early Years Toolbox (“Mr. Ant” and

“Boats and Rabbits”)

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater improvement in behavioral aspects of self-regulation

Olive et al. (2023), Australia [55]

N = 314 (200 boys; M_age=4.29 ± 0.44 yrs)

Intervention: n = 170

Control: n = 144

Setting; childcare

Type; PA: Active Early Learning (AEL) program

Dosage; 3–5 sessions of different components/week for 22 weeks

Maintained regular activity

EF (inhibition, working memory, attention shifting)

Early Years Toolbox (“Go/No-Go”; “Mr Ant”;

“Card Sorting”)

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater improvement in inhibition

Piek et al. (2015), Australia [56]

N= 486 (257 boys; M_age= 5.42 ± 0.3 yrs)

Intervention: =265

Control: n = 221

Setting; early childhood education center

Type; PA: Animal Fun program (aims to enhance motor and social development)

Dosage; 30 min/session, 4 sessions/week for 10 weeks

Maintained regular activity

Social-emotional development (hyperactivity and inattention)

SDQ

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater decrease in hyperactivity and inattention

Sanchez-Lopez et al. (2019), Spain [57]

N = 240 (105 boys; M_age = 5.84 ± 0.38 yrs)

Intervention: n = 82

Control: n = 158

Setting; public and private school

Type; PA: Multicomponent physical activity

(PA) intervention (MOVI-KIDS)

Dosage; 60 min/session, 3 sessions/week for one academic year

Standard PE

Cognitive performance (logical reasoning, verbal abilities, numerical abilities, spatial abilities, general intelligence)

BADyG E1

Identified statistically significant differences between the two groups, with the IG showing greater improvement in all cognitive variables

Schmidt et al. (2020),

Switzerland [58]

N = 189 (98 boys; M_age = 5.34 ± 0.59 yrs)

Intervention1: n = 75

Intervention2: n = 52

Control: n = 62

Setting; kindergarten

Type; PA1: Physical-cognitive condition (Combination of EF-focused light-moderate PA)

PA2: Sedentary-cognitive condition (EF-focused, low PA games)

Dosage; 15 min/session, 4 sessions/week for 6 weeks

Maintained regular activity

EF (updating, inhibition, shifting)

N-back; DNST; DCCS

Identified statistically significant differences between the IG and CG, with the both IGs showing greater improvement in updating

Veiga et al. (2023), Portugal [59]

N = 233 (122 boys; M_age = 5.07 ± 0.84 yrs)

Intervention: n = 155

Control: n = 78

Setting; preschool

Type; PA: OUT to IN intervention (body-oriented)

Dosage; 40 min/session, 20 sessions for 10 weeks

Maintained regular activity

Self-regulation

DNST; HTKS; SDQ

Identified statistically significant differences between the IG and CG, with the IG showing greater improvement in DNST and HTKS scores