青少年执行功能表现特征及相关因素分析

李婉; 尹小俭; 马渊源; 王进贤; 吴慧攀; 施利娟; 张颖坤; 李勇

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2024159

青少年执行功能表现特征及相关因素分析

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2024159

李婉¹,
尹小俭^2, ,,
马渊源³,
王进贤⁴,
吴慧攀⁵,
施利娟⁶,
张颖坤⁷,
李勇⁸

1.
上海应用技术大学学生工作部，上海 201418
2.
上海应用技术大学经济管理学院
3.
吉首大学体育科学学院
4.
中北大学体育学院
5.
太原工业学院儿童青少年健康促进研究中心
6.
上海教师教育学院
7.
山西医科大学公共卫生学院
8.
深圳技术大学体育与艺术学院

基金项目:

国家自然科学基金资助项目 82373595

详细信息

作者简介:
李婉(1985-)，女，河南南阳人，硕士，讲师，主要研究方向为思想政治教育理论与实践

通讯作者:
尹小俭，E-mail：xjyin1965@163.com

利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。
中图分类号: R179 Q427 C913.5
计量
- 文章访问数: 328
- HTML全文浏览量: 131
- PDF下载量: 43
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2024-01-29
- 修回日期: 2024-03-05
- 网络出版日期: 2024-05-30
- 刊出日期: 2024-05-25

Analysis of the characteristics and related factors of executive function in adolescents

1.
Shanghai University of Applied Technology, Shanghai (201418), China

摘要

摘要: 目的探究青少年执行功能表现特征以及相关因素，为促进青少年执行功能发展提供一定的理论依据。方法于2022年9—12月，采用方便整群随机抽样法从上海、苏州、太原、婺源、兴义、乌鲁木齐抽取5 018名13~18岁青少年，采用问卷调查法、测试法对青少年的基本信息、家庭状况、生活行为、体质水平以及执行功能进行调查；同时考虑学校教育间异质性的事实，建立多水平Logistic模型分析青少年执行功能的相关因素。结果高中生抑制功能优于初中生(Z=-2.69)；在刷新功能上，高中生优于初中生(1-back：Z=-11.32，2-back：Z=-11.36)，男生优于女生(2-back：Z=-2.18)；在转换功能方面，高中生优于初中生(Z=-2.63)，男生优于女生(Z=-7.10)(P值均＜0.05)。多水平模型分析结果显示，青少年执行功能在学校水平上存在聚集性。在学生个体水平上，初中生刷新功能(1-back：β=56.94；2-back：β=127.00)、转换功能(β=35.64)差于高中生；男生刷新功能2-Back(β=-21.24)和转换功能(β=-28.42)优于女生；非独生子女刷新功能2-Back优于独生子女(β=-19.36)；低体能者刷新功能2-Back差于高体能(β=37.35)；视屏时间未达标者转换功能优于达标(β=-14.30)(P值均＜0.05)。结论高中生青少年执行功能优于初中生，男生刷新功能和转换功能优于女生；家庭环境、生活方式和体质健康是中国青少年执行功能的相关因素。提高对青少年执行功能主要支持和障碍因素的认识，有助于为青少年制定有效干预计划。
- 执行功能 /
- 生长和发育 /
- 回归分析 /
- 青少年
Abstract: Objective To explore the characteristics and related factors of adolescent executive function, so as to provide theoretical basis for promoting the development of adolescent executive function. Methods A total of 5 018 adolescents aged 13-18 from Shanghai, Suzhou, Taiyuan, Wuyuan, Xingyi and Urumqi were selected by convenient cluster random sampling method from September to December 2022, and their basic information, family status, lifestyle behavior, physical fitness and executive function were investigated by questionnaire survey. Considering the heterogeneity between schools, a multilevel Logistic model was established to analyze the related factors of adolescent executive function. Results The inhibitory function of high school students was better than that of middle school students (Z=-2.69). In terms of refreshment function, high school students were superior than middle school students (1-back: Z=-11.32; 2-back: Z=-11.36), and male students were superior than female students (2-back: Z=-2.18); in terms of shifting function, high school students were superior than middle school students (Z=-2.63), and boys were superior than girls (Z=-7.10)(P < 0.05). The results of multilevel model analysis showed that the executive function of adolescents was clustered at the school level. At the individual level, junior high school refreshment function (1-back: β=56.94; 2-back: β=127.00), and shifting function (β=35.64) were worse than that of high school students; the refreshment function 2-back (β=-21.24) and shifting function (β=-28.42) of male students were better than those of female students; the refreshment function 2-back of non-only child was better than that of only child (β=-19.36); refreshment function of low fitness was worse than that of high fitness (β=37.35); the shifting function of the video screen time not up to standard was better than that of the standard (β=-14.30)(P < 0.05). Conclusions The executive function of high school students is better than that of middle school students, the refreshment function and shifting function of boys are better than that of girls. Family environment, lifestyle and physical health are significant factors related to executive function of Chinese adolescents. By raising awareness of the major supporting and impeding factors for executive functioning in adolescents, it can help to develop effective intervention programs for adolescents.
- Executive function /
- Growth and development /
- Regression analysis /
- Adolescent
注释:

1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。

HTML全文

图 1 不同性别青少年执行功能测试的正确率比较

Figure 1. Comparison of accuracy rates of executive function tests among adolescents of different genders

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 不同学段青少年执行功能测试的正确率比较

Figure 2. Comparison of the accuracy rates of executive function tests among adolescents of different grades

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 不同组别青少年执行功能比较[M(P₂₅，P₇₅)，ms]

Table 1. Comparison of executive functioning in adolescents among different groups[M(P₂₅, P₇₅), ms]

组别	选项	人数	统计值	抑制功能	1-back	2-back	转换功能
性别	男	2 576		4.82(-8.21，18.03)	831.96(656.73，933.81)	1 016.37(830.01，1 260.53)	290.79(225.09，373.45)
	女	2 442		4.17(-8.44，18.07)	931.72(655.45，942.66)	1 031.79(835.38，1 295.64)	318.83(250.64，409.26)
			Z值	-0.53	-0.28	-2.18	-7.10
			P值	0.60	0.78	0.03	＜0.01
学段	初中	2 763		3.79(-9.85，18.23)	833.83(648.44，962.76)	1 030.79(814.76，1 288.40)	308.19(230.98，401.30)
	高中	2 255		5.38(-6.33，17.77)	829.42(663.40，915.28)	1 015.39(848.48，1 263.08)	299.82(244.09，376.30)
			Z值	-2.69	-1.64	-0.32	-2.63
			P值	＜0.01	0.10	0.75	＜0.01
SES	低	1 599		3.59(-9.27，17.46)	814.40(684.64，954.32)	1 100.24(925.12，1 325.24)	299.88(244.67，388.84)
	中	1 844		3.59(-6.86，17.96)	792.34(648.94，944.16)	1 027.32(792.58，12 64.36)	289.25(233.70，377.05)
	高	1 575		3.59(-8.90，18.60)	761.12(630.68，921.16)	1 017.72(770.48，1 240.08)	302.59(230.98，401.56)
			H值	5.29	10.56	35.03	7.12
			P值	0.02	＜0.01	＜0.01	＜0.01
家庭形态	核心家庭	3 550		3.59(-7.83，18.15)	792.96(656.64，933.96)	1 044.30(828.00，1 268.00)	293.93(237.39，388.16)
	主干家庭	1 107		3.59(-9.58，18.04)	772.80(647.64，936.96)	1 058.80(864.64，1 294.48)	302.98(238.70，397.22)
	联合家庭	39		3.59(-7.17，18.48)	769.12(658.72，862.72)	1 089.80(799.88，1 316.08)	306.77(222.44，383.22)
	单亲家庭	210		3.93(-8.50，20.52)	834.76(700.16，1 096.56)	1 026.94(798.52，1 270.80)	289.25(224.84，352.78)
	重组家庭	112		3.59(-9.09，12.73)	801.50(667.46，974.02)	1 096.26(845.82，1 302.92)	322.16(247.66，397.34)
			H值	2.71	12.79	3.85	7.30
			P值	0.61	0.01	0.43	0.12
独生子女	非独生	2 561		3.59(-8.52，18.23)	797.32(656.60，944.20)	1 046.48(827.64，1 278.96)	290.33(237.00，386.89)
	独生	2 457		3.59(-7.92，17.71)	785.76(656.00，934.36)	1 051.16(840.36，1 268.92)	300.02(238.20，391.48)
			H值	-0.41	-0.62	-0.04	-0.94
			P值	0.69	0.54	0.97	0.35
BMI	消瘦	7		-21.08(-39.31，-7.21)	866.44(480.48，1 433.60)	1 080.16(618.36，1 293.64)	377.08(273.44，384.50)
	正常	4 313		3.59(-8.46，18.19)	789.44(655.44，936.96)	1 045.56(830.76，1 270.48)	294.94(236.84，388.05)
	超重	477		3.59(-7.98，17.88)	809.28(685.28，960.96)	1 057.16(857.28，1 288.56)	301.95(242.05，392.73)
	肥胖	221		4.71(-5.81，16.85)	772.60(617.12，910.88)	1 081.72(880.60，1 285.68)	289.48(236.97，390.81)
			H值	8.67	8.20	1.86	0.88
			P值	0.03	0.04	0.60	0.83
睡眠质量	差	1 120		3.59(-10.11，16.52)	810.44(670.82，963.86)	1 068.46(850.16，1 290.00)	296.76(237.66，385.77)
	好	3 898		3.59(-7.75，18.48)	787.14(652.44，934.36)	1 043.78(828.00，1 269.72)	294.90(237.22，388.91)
			H值	-1.65	-2.38	-1.74	-0.15
			P值	0.10	0.02	0.08	0.87
MVPA达标	未达标	2 874		3.59(-8.48，17.90)	795.86(658.72，941.64)	1 056.24(848.48，1 282.32)	297.82(241.86，388.75)
	达标	2 144		3.59(-7.73，18.17)	784.72(650.42，934.48)	1 040.08(812.00，1 266.96)	291.44(231.25，388.19)
			H值	-1.25	-1.36	-1.40	-1.05
			P值	0.21	0.17	0.16	0.29
静态总时长	高	1 704		3.65(-8.77，18.17)	796.34(672.62，941.86)	1 065.10(883.82，1 284.32)	303.52(246.56，398.51)
	中	1 643		3.59(-9.19，17.67)	793.44(663.60，941.44)	1 072.56(863.04，12 90.44)	299.78(236.80，391.69)
	低	1 671		3.59(-6.92，18.48)	786.60(623.88，932.12)	1 008.45(754.44，1 255.88)	289.25(226.48，379.30)
			H值	2.98	12.58	21.96	14.66
			P值	0.23	＜0.01	＜0.01	＜0.01
视屏时间	未达标	918		3.59(-8.96，16.77)	822.86(679.44，981.72)	1 037.04(859.28，1 278.96)	289.25(233.69，368.77)
	达标	4 100		3.59(-8.21，18.23)	784.14(651.56，931.30)	1 052.64(828.00，1 274.82)	299.77(238.97，395.49)
			H值	-0.98	-3.85	-0.71	-3.30
			P值	0.33	＜0.01	0.48	＜0.01
PFI分类	低体能	3 785		3.59(-7.92，17.79)	806.36(671.56，952.52)	1 069.88(879.72，1 295.76)	301.66(245.67，395.64)
	高体能	1 233		3.59(-9.33，19.54)	746.32(611.04，889.04)	1 008.45(685.56，1 218.24)	289.25(207.14，369.84)
			H值	-0.38	-7.07	-8.99	-5.93
			P值	-0.71	＜0.01	＜0.01	＜0.01

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 青少年执行功能相关因素的多水平模型拟合结果(n=5 018)

Table 2. Results of multilevel model fitting for factors related to executive functioning among adolescents(n=5 018)

效应水平	截距与变量	选项	1-back		2-back		转换功能
效应水平	截距与变量	选项	β值	标准误	β值	标准误	β值	标准误
固定效应	截距		782.11^**	53.11	961.36^**	68.75	296.16^**	22.31
	性别	男	-1.58	7.51	-21.24^*	9.05	-28.42^**	3.58
		女	1.00		1.00		1.00
	学段	初中	56.94^**	11.39	127.00^**	13.73	35.64^**	5.41
		高中	1.00		1.00		1.00
	BMI	消瘦	81.76	100.42	10.10	120.97	51.40	47.85
		正常	14.48	18.15	10.14	21.87	14.40	8.65
		超重	32.43	21.35	4.21	25.71	9.73	10.17
		肥胖	1.00		1.00		1.00
	PFI分类	低等级	16.87	9.03	37.35^**	10.88	6.90	4.30
		高等级	1.00		1.00		1.00
	静态总时长	高	-13.30	10.02	-15.75	12.08	4.66	4.78
		中	-1.96	9.32	-4.99	11.23	1.08	4.44
		低	1.00		1.00		1.00
	视屏时间	未达标	20.25	10.68	1.13	12.87	-14.30^**	5.09
		达标	1.00		1.00		1.00
	MVPA	未达标	4.93	7.69	-6.33	9.26	-2.17	3.66
		达标	1.00		1.00		1.00
	睡眠质量	差	8.31	9.02	4.98	10.87	-4.49	4.30
		好	1.00		1.00		1.00
	家庭形态	核心家庭	-0.79	25.29	-0.88	30.47	-10.38	12.05
		主干家庭	-2.53	25.98	6.26	31.30	-11.35	12.38
		联合家庭	-38.37	48.66	-13.24	58.61	-4.95	23.18
		单亲家庭	49.65	30.68	-29.38	36.96	-21.18	14.62
		重组家庭	1.00		1.00		1.00
	SES	低	7.85	12.45	11.19	15.00	-5.13	5.92
		中	17.22	9.87	1.00.02	11.89	-8.73	4.70
		高	1.00		1.00		1.00
	独生子女	非独生	5.13	7.99	-19.36^*	9.62	3.64	3.81
		独生	1.00		1.00		1.00
随机效应	学校水平		28 975.68^**	11 779.12	53 259.78^**	19 290.67	4 061.82^**	1 433.35
	ICC		29.91%		35.08%		20.85%
注： P＜0.05，*P＜0.01。ICC为学校占总体误差的比例。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(57)

[1]	DIAMOND A. Executive functions[J]. Annu Rev Psychol, 2013, 64: 135-168. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750
[2]	FRIEDMAN N P, MIYAKE A. Unity and diversity of executive functions: individual differences as a window on cognitive structure[J]. Cortex, 2017, 86: 186-204. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.04.023
[3]	MUNAKATA Y HERD S A, CHATHAM C H, et al. A unified framework for inhibitory control[J]. Trends Cogn Sci, 2011, 15(10): 453-459. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.07.011
[4]	BADDELEY A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies[J]. Annu Rev Psychol, 2012, 63: 1-29. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422
[5]	DAJANI D R, UDDIN L Q. Demystifying cognitive flexibility: implications for clinical and developmental neuroscience[J]. Trends Neurosci, 2015, 38(9): 571-578. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2015.07.003
[6]	LUCIANA M, BJORK J M, NAGEL B J, et al. Adolescent neurocognitive development and impacts of substance use: overview of the adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) baseline neurocognition battery[J]. Dev Cogn Neurosci, 2018, 32: 67-79. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2018.02.006
[7]	赫中华. 浅析儿童执行功能相关影响因素研究的新进展[J]. 中国校外教育, 2017(24): 61-62. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XWLL201724047.htm HE Z H. Analyzing the new progress of research on the influencing factors related to children's executive function[J]. Afterschool Educ China, 2017(24): 61-62. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XWLL201724047.htm
[8]	LIU Y, ZHANG F, GAN L, et al. Associations between waist circumference and executive function among Chinese Tibetan adolescents living at high altitude[J]. Front Nutr, 2023, 10: 996785. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.996785
[9]	丁吉, 万芹, 干敏雷, 等. 青少年家庭环境与抑郁症状的相关性[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2023, 44(5): 677-681. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2023.05.009 DING J, WAN Q, GAN M L, et al. Correlation between family environment and depressive symptoms in adolescents[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2023, 44(5): 677-681. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2023.05.009
[10]	BUYSSE D J, REYNOLDS Ⅲ C F, MONK T H, et al. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research[J]. Psychiatry Res, 1989, 28(2): 193-213. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(89)90047-4
[11]	武海潭, 干敏雷, 尹小俭, 等. 青少年体力活动与抑郁症状的相关性[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2023, 44(5): 672-676, 681. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2023.05.008 WU H T, GAN M L, YIN X J, et al. Correlation between physical activity and depressive symptoms in adolescents[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2023, 44(5): 672-676, 681. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2023.05.008
[12]	曾祝平, 吴慧攀, 毕存箭, 等. 中国青少年体育锻炼视屏时间与心理亚健康的相关性[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2021, 42(1): 23-27. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.01.006 ZENG Z P, WU H P, BI C J, et al. Correlation between physical exercise, screen time and mental sub-health among Chinese adolescents[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2021, 42(1): 23-27. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.01.006
[13]	中国学生体质与健康研究组. 2014年中国学生体质与健康调报告[M]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2018. Research Group of Chinese Students' Physical Finess and Health. Report on the physical fitness and health surveillance of Chinese school students[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2018. (in Chinese)
[14]	WHO. WHO child growth standards[EB/OL]. (2020-11-10)[2024-04-15]. http://www.who.int/Growthref/en.
[15]	周剑锋, 卢金逵, 干敏雷, 等. 青少年体能状况与抑郁症状的关联[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2023, 44(5): 654-658. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2023.05.004 ZHOU J F, LU J K, GAN M L, et al. Association between physical fitness status and depressive symptoms in adolescents[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2023, 44(5): 654-658. (in Chinese) doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2023.05.004
[16]	LAUREYS F, MIDDELBOS L, ROMMERS N, et al. The effects of age, biological maturation and sex on the development of executive functions in adolescents[J]. Front Physiol, 2021, 12: 703312. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.703312
[17]	FLORES J C, CASTILLO-PRECIADO R E, JIMÉNEZ-MIRAMONTE N A. Desarrollo de funciones ejecutivas, de la niñez a la juventud (executive functions development from chindhood to youthhood)[J]. Annals Psychol, 2014, 30(2): 463-473.
[18]	ANDERSON P. Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood[J]. Child Neuropsychol, 2002, 8(2): 71-82. doi: 10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724
[19]	TETERING M A J, LAAN A M, KOGEL C H, et al. Sex differences in self-regulation in early, middle and late adolescence: a large-scale cross-sectional study[J]. PLoS One, 2020, 15(1): e0227607. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227607
[20]	NOBLE K G, HART E R, SPERBER J F. Socioeconomic disparities and neuroplasticity: moving toward adaptation, intersectionality, and inclusion[J]. Am Psychol, 2021, 76(9): 1486. doi: 10.1037/amp0000934
[21]	GRISSOM N M, REYES T M. Let's call the whole thing off: evaluating gender and sex differences in executive function[J]. Neuropsychopharmacology, 2019, 44(1): 86-96. doi: 10.1038/s41386-018-0179-5
[22]	LAWSON G M, HOOK C J, FARAH M J. A Meta-analysis of the relationship between socioeconomic status and executive function performance among children[J]. Dev Sci, 2018, 21(2): e12529. doi: 10.1111/desc.12529
[23]	SARSOUR K, SHERIDAN M, JUTTE D, et al. Family socioeconomic status and child executive functions: the roles of language, home environment, and single parenthood[J]. J Int Neuropsychol Soc, 2011, 17(1): 120-132. doi: 10.1017/S1355617710001335
[24]	ROSEN M L, AMSO D, MCLAUGHLIN K A. The role of the visual association cortex in scaffolding prefrontal cortex development: a novel mechanism linking socioeconomic status and executive function[J]. Dev Cogn, 2019, 39: 100699.
[25]	GROENEVELD M G, SAVAS M, VAN ROSSUM E F C, et al. Children's hair cortisol as a biomarker of stress at school: a follow-up study[J]. Stress, 2020, 23(5): 590-596. doi: 10.1080/10253890.2020.1725467
[26]	BLAIR C. Developmental science and executive function[J]. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 2016, 25(1): 3-7. doi: 10.1177/0963721415622634
[27]	BLAKE J. The only child in America: prejudice versus performance[J]. Popul Dev Rev, 1981, 7(1): 43-54. doi: 10.2307/1972763
[28]	FALBO T, POLIT D F. Quantitative review of the only child literature: research evidence and theory development[J]. Psychol Bull, 1986, 100(2): 176. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.176
[29]	PETROV M E, LICHSTEIN K L, BALDWIN C M. Prevalence of sleep disorders by sex and ethnicity among older adolescents and emerging adults: relations to daytime functioning, working memory and mental health[J]. J Adolesc, 2014, 37(5): 587-597. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.04.007
[30]	GONG L, SHI M, WANG J, et al. The abnormal functional connectivity in the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system associated with anxiety symptom in chronic insomnia disorder[J]. Front Neurosci, 2021, 15: 678465. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.678465
[31]	MAKO M, ARIKA Y, FUMIYO N, et al. Impaired executive function in junior high school students with excess sleep time[J]. Vulnerabl Child Youth Stud, 2019, 14(2): 116-12. doi: 10.1080/17450128.2019.1580404
[32]	CONTRERAS-OSORIO F, CAMPOS-JARA C, MARTÍNEZ-SALA-ZAR C, et al. Effects of sport-based interventions on children's executive function: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Brain Sci, 2021, 11(6): 755. doi: 10.3390/brainsci11060755
[33]	LIU S, YU Q, LI Z, et al. Effects of acute and chronic exercises on executive function in children and adolescents: a systemic review and Meta-analysis[J]. Front Psychol, 2020, 11: 554915. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.554915
[34]	LEHMANN N, VILLRINGER A, TAUBERT M. Colocalized white matter plasticity and increased cerebral blood flow mediate the beneficial effect of cardiovascular exercise on long-term motor learning[J]. J Neurosci, 2020, 40(12): 2416-2429. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2310-19.2020
[35]	EL-SAYES J, HARASYM D, TURCO C V, et al. Exercise-induced neuroplasticity: a mechanistic model and prospects for promoting plasticity[J]. Neuroscientist, 2019, 25(1): 65-85. doi: 10.1177/1073858418771538
[36]	CROVA C, STRUZZOLINO I, MARCHETTI R, et al. Cognitively challenging physical activity benefits executive function in overweight children[J]. J Sport Sci, 2014, 32(3): 201-211. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2013.828849
[37]	DIAMOND A. Effects of physical exercise on executive functions: going beyond simply moving to moving with thought[J]. Ann Sports Med Res, 2015, 2(1): 1011.
[38]	TOMPOROWSKI P D, PESCE C. Exercise, sports, and performance arts benefit cognition via a common process[J]. Psychol Bull, 2019, 145(9): 929. doi: 10.1037/bul0000200
[39]	MOREAU D. Brains and brawn: complex motor activities to maximize cognitive enhancement[J]. Educ Psychol Rev, 2015, 27: 475-482. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9323-5
[40]	GENTILE A, BOCA S, DEMETRIOU Y, et al. The influence of an enriched sport program on children's sport motivation in the school context: the ESA program[J]. Front Psychol, 2020, 11: 601000. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.601000
[41]	LI S, GUO J, ZHENG K, et al. Is sedentary behavior associated with executive function in children and adolescents? A systematic review[J]. Front Public Health, 2022, 10: 832845. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.832845
[42]	SWEETSER P, JOHNSON D, OZDOWSKA A, et al. Active versus passive screen time for young children[J]. Aust J Early Child, 2012, 37(4): 94-98.
[43]	HOROWITZ-KRAUS T, HUTTON J S. Brain connectivity in children is increased by the time they spend reading books and decreased by the length of exposure to screen-based media[J]. Acta Paediatr, 2018, 107(4): 685-693. doi: 10.1111/apa.14176
[44]	BRAINARD G C, HANIFIN J P, GREESON J M, et al. Action spectrum for melatonin regulation in humans: evidence for a novel circadian photoreceptor[J]. J Neurosci, 2001, 21(16): 6405-6412. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.21-16-06405.2001
[45]	THAPAN K, ARENDT J, SKENE D J. An action spectrum for melatonin suppression: evidence for a novel non-rod, non-cone photoreceptor system in humans[J]. J Physiol, 2001, 535(1): 261-267. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7793.2001.t01-1-00261.x
[46]	ZAVALA-CRICHTON J P, ESTEBAN-CORNEJO I, SOLIS-URRA P, et al. Association of sedentary behavior with brain structure and intelligence in children with overweight or obesity: the Active Brains Project[J]. J Clin Med, 2020, 9(4): 1101. doi: 10.3390/jcm9041101
[47]	HUTTON J S, DUDLEY J, HOROWITZ-KRAUS T, et al. Associations between screen-based media use and brain white matter integrity in preschool-aged children[J]. JAMA Pediatr, 2020, 174(1): e193869. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3869
[48]	KAMIJO K, PONTIFEX M B, KHAN N A, et al. The negative association of childhood obesity to cognitive control of action monitoring[J]. Cereb, 2014, 24(3): 654-662.
[49]	NEDERKOORN C, COELHO J S, GUERRIERI R, et al. Specificity of the failure to inhibit responses in overweight children[J]. Appetite, 2012, 59(2): 409-413. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.05.028
[50]	MAAYAN L, HOOGENDOORN C, SWEAT V, et al. Disinhibited eating in obese adolescents is associated with orbitofrontal volume reductions and executive dysfunction[J]. Obesity, 2011, 19(7): 1382-1387. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.15
[51]	CHAN J S Y, YAN J H, PAYNE V G. The impact of obesity and exercise on cognitive aging[J]. Front Ag Neurosci, 2013, 5: 97.
[52]	KAMIJO K, PONTIFEX M B, O'LEARY K C, et al. The effects of an afterschool physical activity program on working memory in preadolescent children[J]. Dev Sci, 2011, 14(5): 1046-1058. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01054.x
[53]	KAO S C, WESTFALL D R, PARKS A C, et al. Muscular and aerobic fitness, working memory, and academic achievement in children[J]. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2017, 49(3): 500-508. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001132
[54]	SCUDDER M R, LAMBOURNE K, DROLLETTE E S, et al. Aerobic capacity and cognitive control in elementary school-age children[J]. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2014, 46(5): 1025. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000199
[55]	HAVERKAMP B F, OOSTERLAAN J, KONIGS M, et al. Physical fitness, cognitive functioning and academic achievement in healthy adolescents[J]. Psychol Sport Exerc, 2021, 57: 102060. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102060
[56]	LIU Y, HONG J, YIN X, et al. Relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness and executive function of Chinese Tibetan adolescents aged 13-18[J]. J Sci Med Sport, 2023, 26(11): 610-615. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2023.09.003
[57]	MUNTANER-MAS A, MORA-GONZALEZ J, CABANAS-SANCHEZ V, et al. Prospective associations between physical fitness and executive function in adolescents: the UP&DOWN study[J]. Psychol Sport Exerc, 2022, 61: 102203. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102203