Those in the Control condition followed the Exercise-After protocol, except they did not exercise but rested for another 30 min after studying the learning material. The researchers recorded heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived effort (RPE, Lenvatinib self-report) in 5-min intervals to monitor the process to

control for impact from unplanned procedural variations. The data analysis strategy was planned to ensure accuracy of the results. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to detect any procedural interference. Only after it was determined that the between-condition HR and RPE changes were not statistically significant (p > 0.05 for time × condition interaction and for condition main effect), did the researcher proceed to the main effect analysis – a one-way ANOVA. In the analysis the experimental condition was the independent variable and the long-term memory test scores were

the dependent variable. For a total of possible 22 recall units, the Exercise-Prior group scored an average of 15.50 ± 4.13 units correct, the Exercise-After group 12.19 ± 4.68, and the Control group 11.13 ± 4.27 (mean ± SD). The ANOVA revealed statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the Exercise-Prior and Control with an effect size of Cohen's d = 1.04. The result answers the research questions cleverly. First, it shows that exercise did facilitate long-term memory (effect). Secondly, only exercising prior Sucrase to learning facilitated the long-term memory (timing). While the researchers

elaborated Decitabine chemical structure on possible mechanisms that the results may have implied, I can’t help but think about ramifications of the data to the relation of physical activity and academic learning. The result certainly confirms what others have found that exercise does improve cognitive functions. But its significance appears to go beyond that. It is very exciting to know that the timing of exercise seems to be the sole facilitator for the recall outcome. My principal would have been very happy, had she known the finding; after all, scheduling the morning calisthenics prior to the first period might indeed have facilitated learning in her school! The researchers pointed out some limitations of the study, the gender-imbalance in the sample and the absence of personal fitness in determining the exercise protocol intensity in the experiment. From my learning-centered perspective, which may be biased, these are trivial limitations. Instead, I would add a cognitive capacity screening test to assess the homogeneity of participants’ cognitive capacity across the three conditions. The source of confounding to the dependent variable might not come from the participants’ physical activity behavior, but from their initial cognitive capacity. It seems that the researchers relied on the randomization to control for cognitive capacity heterogeneity, a possible systematic sampling error.