Exercise modes can be categorized based on the skills required (open vs. closed skills), which implicates various demands on cognitive skills, especially executive functions (EFs). Thus, their practice may have varying effects on EFs. There is a lack of detailed analysis of cognitive requirements and suitable classification of sports. It is hypothesized that the amount and type of cognitive requirements of sports lead to small effect sizes when comparing open-skill exercising (OSE) and closed-skill exercising (CSE) athletes. The current meta-analysis evaluates the variances in EFs skills caused by particular sport modes. Four research databases (Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, PsychINFO) were searched for cross-sectional studies in which the authors compare the performance in EF tasks of OSE and CSE athletes. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using funnel plots and two reviewer selection process (overall and subgroup analysis; low risk of publication and selection bias). A total of 19 studies were included, revealing an overall effect size of Hedge’s g = 0.174 (p = 0.157), favoring OSE for the development of EFs. The subgroup analysis revealed the effects for the subdomains of EFs (cognitive flexibility: Hedge’s g = 0.210 > inhibitory control: Hedge’s g = 0.191 > working memory: Hedge’s g = 0.138; p > 0.05), which could be characterized as low to moderate. The hypothesis that studies with the smallest effect sizes compare sport modes with similar cognitive demands was rejected. The paper discusses the differentiation of sports into OSE and CSE and presents new approaches for their categorization.

Sports psychology and kinesiology research focused on executive functions in the last ten years as cognitive functions could be one of the smallest adjustments possible in high-level athletes. We examined the connection of sports experience, (relative-) age effects, and physical maturity on the executive functions in male youth soccer players (N = 110). Working memory was assessed using the 3-back task, inhibition was measured using the flanker task, and cognitive flexibility was measured using the number-letter task. We hypothesised that sports experience, (relative-) age effects and physical maturity are positively correlated with executive functions. However, the linear regression model MANOVA test statistics revealed only an impact of calendar age on executive functions. The results demonstrate that athletes attain a certain level in executive functions and gain specific cognitive skills in their sports. Nevertheless, questions about the transfer of executive functions on sport-specific cognitive skills remain unclear.

The assessment of core executive functions (EFs; i.e., inhibition, working memory, cognitive flexibility) has often been presented as a diagnostic tool for evaluating cognitive functions in recent publications. For example, EFs are essential in soccer because players must quickly adapt, change strategies, and inhibit responses in rapidly changing game situations. Previous research has shown relations between (subjectively rated) game performance and the EFs of soccer players. Nevertheless, the previous studies’ samples were heterogeneous in their performance level (experts vs. amateurs), and the ratings were rather unsystematic (no validated rating protocol). Therefore, the current study aimed to predict soccer players’ game performance (i.e., systematically rated by coaches) with the help of EF performance. Therefore, we assessed the game performance (small-sided game, Game Performance Assessment Instrument [GPAI]) and EFs (inhibition: flanker task; working memory: 3-back task; cognitive flexibility: number-letter task) of 94 male soccer players (12–19 years old) from Germany’s highest competitive level. Multiple regression model results indicate that inhibition (i.e., flanker effect) and calendar age explain ~18% of players’ game performance variance. Results have to be interpreted with regard to the age-dependency of game performance and EFs. In conclusion, even though the results are based on a cross-sectional study, it appears that calendar age needs to be considered when assessing EFs.

Exercise modes can be categorised based on the skills (open vs. closed skills) required, which implicates various demands on cognitive skills, especially executive functions (EFs). Thus, their practice may have varying effects on EFs. There is a lack of detailed analysis of cognitive affordances and a suitable classification of sports. It is hypothesized that the similarity of cognitive affordances leads to small effect sizes when comparing OSE and CSE. The current meta-analysis evaluates the variances in cognitive skills caused by particular sport modes. Four research databases (Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, PsychINFO) were searched for cross-sectional studies that compare the effect of OSE and CSE on EFs. A total of 19 studies were included, revealing an overall effect size of g = 0.174 (p = .157) for OSE versus CSE. The subgroup analysis revealed the effects for various EFs (CF: g = .210 > IC: g = .191 > WM: g = .138; p > .05), which could be characterised as low to moderate. The hypothesis that studies with the smallest effect sizes compare sport modes with similar cognitive demands was rejected. The paper discusses the differentiation of sports into OSE and CSE, and presents new approaches for their categorisation.

Athletes in a particular sport have specific cognitive skills acquired due to regular confrontation with sport-specific requirements. Studies show that the particular type of sport carried out and fostered by general physical activity impacts executive functions (EFs) such as inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. There are inconsistent results on the connections between domain-specific cognitive skills and executive functions. This study aimed to evaluate the relations between EFs and domain-specific cognitive skills in climbing. Due to that, we examined the executive functions (neuropsychological tests) and domain-specific cognitive skills (climbing-specific test: a preview of the route vs. climbed moves; climbed moves vs. recognition of moves) of 19 climbers (10 novices, 9 experts, grades 5 to 6a vs. 6c+ to 7b). The inter-subject effects analysis shows that novices and experts in sport climbing do not differ in executive functions in this particular case. Concerning domain-specific cognitive skills, there are differences between experts and novices. Experts show a significantly higher level in planning performance or route idea (p < 0.001) as well as in memorizing of climbed moves (p = 0.004). There are no relations between executive functions and domain-specific cognitive skills in climbers.