{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04162004922801522, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018721563362422616, 'mean_word_length': 5.092933424221767, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 6, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Active School Breaks and Students’ Attention: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

School physical activity breaks are currently being proposed as a way to improve students’ learning. However, there is no clear evidence of the effects of active school breaks on academic-related cognitive outcomes. The present systematic review with meta-analysis scrutinized and synthesized the literature related to the effects of active breaks on students’ attention. On January 12th, 2021, PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science were searched for published interventions with counterbalanced cross-over or parallel-groups designs with a control group, including school-based active breaks, objective attentional outcomes, and healthy students of any age. Studies’ results were qualitatively synthesized, and meta-analyses were performed if at least three study groups provided pre-post data for the same measure. Results showed some positive acute and chronic effects of active breaks on attentional outcomes (i.e., accuracy, concentration, inhibition, and sustained attention), especially on selective attention. However, most of the results were not significant. The small number of included studies and their heterogeneous design are the primary limitations of the present study. Although the results do not clearly point out the positive effects of active breaks, they do not compromise students’ attention. The key roles of intensity and the leader of the active break are discussed. INPLASY registration number: 202110054.


Introduction
Active breaks (ABs) are currently gaining attention within the educational context [1]. ABs consist of short periods (usually between five and 15 min) of classroom-based physical activity (PA) [2], which are integrated into the routine of the class [1,3]. These can be implemented by the teacher [2] during or between academic instructions [4]. Compared to their review, Daly-Smith et al. (2019) [1] reported that the highest proportion of time spent on moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in active lessons was associated with the researcher-led intervention. Similarly,   [3] pointed out that programs presented a higher fidelity to the required intensity when research staff was responsible for the intervention. These studies highlight the importance of the intervention deliverers' qualifications, which has not yet been clarified in the AB literature.
For more than a decade, students' attention deficits have been a significant concern of teachers [28]. ABs seem to be a promising way to enhance students' attentional levels in the class. However, several questions remain to be answered. To the best of our knowledge, there is only one previous meta-analysis that examined this issue [2], and it focused only on overall cognitive-or academic-related outcomes in 6-to 9-year-old students.
Therefore, the aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to scrutinize and synthesize the literature related to the effects of ABs (compared to control conditions) on the attention of students (of any age). We also addressed some possible moderators that previous research pointed out as relevant to the effects of ABs on cognition.

Materials and Methods
This systematic review (with meta-analysis) followed established international guidelines [29,30]. The protocol was published in INPLASY (International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols) with the identification number of 202,110,054 and DOI 10.37766/inplasy2021.1.0054.

Eligibility Criteria
According to the Participants, Intervention, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study design (P.I.C.O.S.) approach, the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this systematic review and meta-analysis can be found in Table 1. Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria following the P.I.C.O.S. approach.

PICOS Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
Population Healthy students of any age and of any sex from elementary to college educational levels.
Populations other than students (e.g., workers, athletes). Students with a diagnosed mental disease.

Intervention
ABs consisting of short bouts of exercise in class during or between academic lessons (e.g., structured exercises, free exercise).
No ABs (e.g., physical education classes; playing with instruments without allowing PA).
Comparator Control conditions (passive or non-active breaks with limited PA).
Other forms of physical activity interventions (e.g., physical education lessons).

Outcome
Attentional outcomes (e.g., focused or selective attention, vigilance, inhibitory control) measured before (pre-) and after (post-) ABs or a chronic intervention of ABs.
Outcomes other than attention. No pre-post comparison. Inaccessible pre-or post-intervention data.

Study design
Counterbalanced cross-over design and parallel-groups design.
Study designs that do not allow within-subjects comparisons for both control and AB conditions.
Additional criteria Original and full-text studies written in English.
Non-original articles (e.g., reviews, letters to editors, trial registrations, proposals for protocols, editorials, book chapters, conference abstracts).

Information Sources
Five electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant publications prior to 12 January 2021. Keywords and synonyms were entered in various combinations: ("activ* break*" OR "physical break*" OR "physical activity break*" OR "exercise break*" OR "brain break" OR "brain hacking" OR "movement learning" OR "active learning") AND (student* OR class* OR school*) AND attent*. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies were manually searched to identify potentially eligible studies not captured by the electronic searches. All records were screened by two researchers (AIP and FTGF).

Data Extraction
A data extraction was prepared in Microsoft Excel sheet (Microsoft Corporation, Readmon, WA, USA), similar to the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's data extraction template (Group, 2016). The Excel sheet was used to assess inclusion and exclusion requirements and subsequently tested for all selected studies. The process was independently conducted by two authors (AIP and HS). Any disagreement regarding study eligibility was resolved in a discussion with a third author (FTGF) when necessary. Full text articles excluded and the reasons for doing so were recorded (see Table A1 in Appendix A). All the records were stored in the sheet.

Data Items
The following categories of information were extracted from included articles: (i) randomization unit, design, number of participants (n), age group (schoolchildren, young adults or both), sex (men, women or both); (ii) fitness of participants; (iii) identification of ABs (time, duration, weekly and/or daily frequency, intensity and type of PA, academic content, the person who is responsible for the AB, and protocol), (iv) treatment fidelity, (v) measurement of attention (i.e., task), (vi) time of measurements (pre and post) and (vii) effect measured (i.e., acute effects vs. chronic effects).

Assessment of Methodological Quality
The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-ofbias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [31], as well as the supplements for cluster randomized trials (CRTs) [32] and for cross-over trials [33]. For non-RCT, the Cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) scale was used [34]. These tools include a minimum of 21 items that enable the assessment of the risk of bias (i.e., "low risk", "some concerns", or "high risk") of several dimensions that vary according to the study design (namely, bias arising from the randomization process, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to missing outcome data, bias in measurement of the outcome, and bias in selection of the reported result). An 'intention-to-treat' effect approach was followed for all the assessments, which implies that the interest focused on the effect of assignment to the interventions. This approach was followed because there was a wide variety of study designs and protocols could not be reviewed in most of the cases. Altogether an overall level of risk of bias per study was computed. Risk of bias assessments were based on the published articles, which were accompanied with the trial protocols in two studies [6,35]. Two of the authors (AIP and HS) independently screened and assessed the included articles. Discrepancies were solved by consensus between the two authors without the need for assistance from a third author.

Statistical Analyses
Meta-analyses were performed if at least three study groups provided pre-post ABrelated data for the same measure. Using a random-effects model, the means and standard deviations (SD) for dependent variables were used to calculate effect sizes (ES; Hedges' g) for each outcome in AB treatments and control conditions. When means and SDs were not available, they were obtained from 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or standard error of mean (SEM), using Cochrane recommended formulas. Data were standardized using postintervention SD values. The ES values are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Calculated ES were interpreted using the following scale: <0.2, trivial; 0.2-0.6, small; >0.6-1.2, moderate; >1.2-2.0, large; >2.0-4.0, very large; >4.0, extremely large [36]. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic, with values of <25%, 25-75%, and >75% considered to represent low, moderate, and high levels of heterogeneity, respectively [37]. The risk of bias was explored using the extended Egger's test [38]. To adjust for publication bias, a sensitivity analysis was conducted using the trim and fill method [39], with L0 as the default estimator for the number of missing studies [40]. All analyses were carried out using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 2; Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA). Statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

Study Identification and Selection
The database search retrieved 1809 titles, which were exported to reference manager software (EndNoteTM X9, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA). Duplicates (520 references) were subsequently removed either automatically or manually. The remaining 1289 articles were screened for their relevance based on titles and abstracts, resulting in the removal of a further 1244 studies. Following the screening procedure, 45 articles were selected for in-depth reading and analysis. After reading full texts, a further 36 studies were excluded due to not meeting the eligibility criteria (Table A1). Finally, nine studies were selected for the further analysis together with another seven studies that were identified from other sources, reaching a total of 16 included studies (Figure 1), involving 3383 participants between 6 and 13 years old. Due to the limited number of studies included into the review for each attentional outcome (e.g., global attention, selective attention, inhibition, etc.), results from participants of all ages included were grouped together despite this age range involves different stages of development.

Methodological Quality
The overall methodological quality of the intervention studies can be found in Table A2. Nine studies were assessed as having some concerns in their overall RoB 2 quality scale, and eight were assessed as high risk of bias. The score for the only study assessed by ROBINS-I was critical [48]. None of the studies achieved low risk of bias. Methodological assessment revealed issues on the quality of the bias in the information reported on the randomization process, the reporting of possible deviations from the intended interventions and the selection of the reported result.

Active Breaks: Effects on Attention
Due to the multi-component nature of attention, a wide variety of attention-related outcomes were reported among included studies (e.g., global attention; selective attention). Table A3 shows a synthesis of the outcomes according to the task and their scoring. Overall, results from the 11 parallel groups design studies ( Table 2) showed that the effects of ABs on attention were mainly positive or non-significant; no negative effect of ABs was found. In addition, results from the five cross-over design studies (Table 3) showed similar results, with positive or no effects on attentional outcomes and without negative results. The results for each outcome are synthesized in the following sections.

Effects on Accuracy
Accuracy was only measured with the d2 test. Acute positive effects were found only in an aerobic MPA AB intervention on 9 to 11-year-old students [23]. No other acute [19,45] nor chronic effects were found [48]. Meta-analyses could not be run since there were less than three studies per analysis. Motor fitness: 20m-SRT, 20m sprint test and jump side-to-side.
The AB improved only inhibition, and its effects remained for less than 40 min after the AB. The improvements were suggested to be independent of the participants' characteristics and stronger among those with higher increases in cortisol.

Effects on Inhibition
Inhibition was measured in four studies through the flanker task, the Stroop task, and the ANT tests. Only one study found acute favorable effects after a 20-min cognitively engaged AB intervention [42]. The remaining studies on acute [41,43] or chronic [47] effects found no significant results.

Effects on Concentration
Eight studies reported an index of concentration performance, which has been mainly measured by the d2 and FACES tests. Regarding the acute effects, one of them found positive effects of 12-min VPA on 9 to 10-year-old students' concentration [44]. On the other hand, positive chronic effects after four and 10 weeks of intervention were found in two of four studies [46,48]; however, the four-week study of these was assessed as high risk at ROBINS-I [48]. No other significant effects were found.

Effects on Selective Attention
Six studies measured selective attention with the d2, FACES and the Sky-Search task in TEA-Ch tests. With the exception of one study [23], the other three studies that measured acute effects reported positive results, with ABs varying between 12 and 20 min of MPA or VPA. Of note, one of the interventions only reported favorable results on the group that participated in two ABs during the same morning and no differences between one AB and no AB [35], while other reported only benefits for the AB of MPA and not for the VPA AB [6]. In addition, greater benefits were reported among low-income students [45]. Regarding the chronic effects, results were similar to the concentration's results.

Effects on Shifting
Shifting was only assessed in three studies [41][42][43] that used the flanker task to test acute effects. None of them found any acute effect after ABs. In the meta-analyses, the three studies provided data, involving five experimental and three control groups (pooled n = 441). There was a trivial effect of AB on shifting (ES = −0.18; 95% CI = −0.52 to 0.15; p = 0.286; I 2 = 65.7%; Egger's test p = 0.229; relative weight of each group: 19.1 to 21.8%; Figure 5). After study-by-study and group-by-group sensitivity analyses, no significant changes in results were noted (i.e., p-value remained at >0.05, mean ES = −0.29 to 0.27). Values shown are effect sizes (Hedges's g) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The size of the plotted squares reflects the statistical weight of each study. The black diamond reflects the overall result. This trend is not statistically significant. IG: intervention group.

Effects on Sustained Attention/Vigilance
ANT, d2 and PVT tests were employed in each of the three studies that measured sustained attention/vigilance [47][48][49]. No acute effects were found [49]. On the other hand, positive chronic effects after a four-week intervention were found [48], but it presented a high risk at ROBINS-I. Meta-analyses could not be run since there were less than three studies per analysis.

Effects on Other Outcomes
Only one study [47] measured orienting, in 9 to 12-year-old students, before and after a 9-week intervention of daily MVPA cognitive ABs. No chronic effects were found. In addition, one study, of 8 to 11-year-old students, reported a global outcome of attention by a compendium of different executive function tasks [50]. This study found favorable acute effects after 10-15 min of AB involving aerobic MPA. Due to the reduced number of studies reporting data for these outcomes, a meta-analysis was precluded.

Discussion of Evidence
The present systematic review with meta-analysis scrutinized and synthesized the literature related to the effects of ABs on students' (of any age) attention when compared to control conditions. The results do not point to any clear acute or chronic effects of ABs on students' overall attention, although some positive effects were found in terms of accuracy, concentration, inhibition, sustained attention, and (especially) selective attention. The meta-analysis revealed no statistical differences between AB and control groups regarding inhibition (Figure 2), concentration (Figure 3), or shifting ( Figure 5). The trends for inhibition and concentration favored AB groups, and the trend for shifting favored the control groups. Nevertheless, all three meta-analyses included zero in their confidence intervals; therefore, no solid conclusions can be drawn. However, for selective attention, there was a significant difference between the AB and control groups (Figure 4) in favor of the former. These results will be discussed. In addition, overall, ABs did not compromise students' attention.
As a first approximation to the problem, we suggest that the small number of positive effects [6,23,35,42,[44][45][46]48,50] in the different included outcomes could be attributed to the fact that performing any type of exercise provokes neurophysiological changes in the brain [52]. Nevertheless, there is much heterogeneity and a wide variety of ABs protocols encountered (i.e., durations ranging from 4 to 20 min; intensities of exercise ranging from moderate and vigorous; the inclusion of various types of PA such as aerobic, anaerobic, and muscular resistance; and the use of specific cognitive tasks to assess attention such as d2, ANT, and the flanker task). These differences do not provide clear evidence and have sparked controversy due to the non-existence of general guidelines for applying and implementing ABs.
Regarding the acute exercise paradigm, positive effects were observed only for accuracy [23], concentration [44], inhibition [42], and selective attention [6,35,45]. This suggests that cognitive activities performed after exercise lasting 4 to 20 min could produce overall benefits to students' attention. In addition, regarding the studies including chronic AB interventions, positive effects were observed after 10 weeks in terms of concentration and selective attention [46]. Likewise, positive chronic effects on sustained attention were found after a four-week intervention [48].
Despite the lack of support from the meta-analyses, the positive findings found regarding selective attention are in line with the study of Donnelly et al. (2016) [53], who showed that routinely practicing PA in schools enhances cognitive performance. In fact, chronic exercise positively influences different attention processes in children [54]. In all cases, an argument could be made for the importance of studying additional moderators since these could influence the effects of exercise [20]. However, the small number of studies found per outcome did not allow us to make robust distinctions about the effects according to the moderators [20].
Despite the lack of clear moderators explaining the relationship between exercise and cognitive function, the results suggest that the intensity of the exercise used in ABs plays a fundamental role in the literature exploring the specific effects of PA on cognition. In fact, the current research suggests that some attentional outcomes improved after ABs at MVPA intensities (40 to 80 of VO 2 max). However, many studies did not monitor the intensities of ABs, nor did they measure the magnitudes of the changes in some physiological mechanisms (e.g., brain-derived neurotrophic factor, catecholamines, increased cerebral blood flow) [20,55] to predict their possible effects on behavior and cognitive performance.
Nevertheless, in most studies, ABs were carried out in the classroom and never under laboratory conditions. For this reason, measuring exercise intensities with a large sample is a truly complex matter. In fact, objective instruments (either a heart rate monitor [19,35,[41][42][43]45,51] or accelerometry [6,24,47,49]) were used to calculate the loads of ABs. However, researchers have also relied on subjective measures controlled by the teachers-in some cases, the measures were simply not registered [23,44,46,48,50]. In all cases, a potential and valid proposal might be the use of the subjective perception of effort (e.g., Egger et al. 2018 [41], Schmidt et al. 2016 [19]). This approach, which helps calculate metabolic changes during exercise, could be an effective option to use in school children [56,57].
In light of the above discussion, another key factor that might moderate the effects of ABs is the person who applies the AB. In this sense, it would be appropriate for physical education teachers to be responsible for applying ABs in all interventions [1,27]. On the one hand, they have the capacity to guide research proposals since they have a deeper knowledge of training principles involved in any kind of PA. On the other hand, they could provide students and other teachers with techniques for controlling the intensity of the AB in each intervention, which is suggested as being a determinant of outcomes in the present work [26].

Study Limitations
The first limitation of this systematic review is the small number of studies found per outcome and associated effect of PA (i.e., acute or chronic) and the heterogeneity among these studies' designs. This leads to the second main limitation, which is that the ESs for each effect type cannot rely on a minimum of three studies in all cases. In addition, the heterogeneity was considerable for chronic effects in concentration and acute effects in shifting. Altogether, these limitations indicate that the results should be interpreted with caution.

Practical Implications
The outcomes of this study present implications for incorporating ABs into school lessons to improve students' attention. Through ABs students can reach higher levels of PA, which promotes a healthy lifestyle.
However, teachers are not usually adequately prepared to carry out ABs throughout the day during class. Thus, teachers should be trained on the correct implementation of ABs and the integration of movement on class days to ensure that ABs positively affect students' health and cognition. To achieve this, ABs should control physiological measures to objectively calculate exercise intensity. As a result, students might obtain more benefits from ABs if teachers are also trained in the use and interpretation of measures of PA intensity feasible for in-class use, such as the Borg scale [58][59][60].
Finally, as it relates to practical implications, the duration of ABs varied from 4 min to more than 20 min. However, previous research has shown that only exercise of more than 20 min had positive results on cognitive performance [20]. From an educational point of view, it could be thought that adding a 20-min break into current school timetables may compromise the learning time. Therefore, ABs of such a length may not be practical. Additionally, evidence on this matter is not clear, as a recent review found that the duration of PA was inversely related to attentional performance [12].
Notwithstanding, from an academic performance perspective, increasing the amount of school-based PA does not compromise academic achievement and can improve classroom behavior and academic achievement [14]. In addition, as seen in some of the included studies, ABs can include academic content [24,49] and, therefore, could also be included in the learning time. Although more conclusive evidence is needed on this topic, ABs could be included and adapted to different educational contexts and would be effective for improving students' health and cognitive outcomes as long as the required intensity and time are met.

Conclusions
There are no clear positive effects of ABs on students' attention. The heterogeneity in the designs and measurements of the studies and the small number of studies carried out in school environments are the main reasons for the lack of conclusive results. Notwithstanding, it seems that including PA in school time through ABs does not compromise students' attention, and it could positively affect selective attention.
The intensity and duration of the PA seem to play a key role in cognitive effects. Therefore, efforts should be made to help teachers understand how to motivate their students to reach the correct intensity levels when carrying out an AB.
Even though research on ABs started around a decade ago, clear evidence is still lacking regarding their effects on attention. The results presented here highlight that this topic is still of significant relevance. Acknowledgments: Álvaro Infantes-Paniagua gratefully acknowledges that his research is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (FPU16/00082). Francisco Tomás González Fernández gratefully acknowledges that he is supported by Beca de Movilidad Erasmus+ para recibir formación (PDI) Erasmus 2020-2021. Hugo Sarmento gratefully acknowledges the support of a Spanish government subproject 'Integration ways between qualitative and quantitative data, multiple case development, and synthesis review as main axis for an innovative future in physical activity and sports research (PGC2018-098742-B-C31) (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Programa Estatal de Generación de Conocimiento y Fortalecimiento Científico y Tecnológico del Sistema I+D+i)', which is part of the coordinated project 'New approach of research in physical activity and sport from mixed methods perspective (NARPAS_MM) (SPGC201800 × 098742CV0)'. Filipe Manuel Clemente gratefully acknowledges that this work is also funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia/Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior through national funds and when applicable co-funded EU funds under the project UIDB/50008/2020.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.