## 4 Discussion
### Differences in Cognitive Function between OSE and CSE  
Consistent with the findings of a recent systematic review [53], we found OSE to be more effective at improving cognitive performance than CSE. Furthermore, when we refined cognitive performance, OSE produced better inhibition and cognitive flexibility than CSE. In two previous studies [43; 50], event-related potential was used to compare OSE and CSE, and the former exhibited a better electrophysiological performance. These results are also consistent with the present findings. Regarding visuospatial attention, previous studies have produced conflicting views. For example, when [PERSON] et al. focused on the lateralization of athletes' visuospatial attention, no significant difference in visuospatial attention was observed between the CSE and control groups [40]. Moreover, the performance of both groups was worse than that for OSE, suggesting that a stable sports environment may not effectively train individuals to distract their visuospatial attention. In contrast, another study conducted by [PERSON] et al. showed no difference in visuospatial attention between OSE and CSE [47]. We are more inclined to support the former result based on our understanding of the two exercise modes. It should be noted that data for the present meta-analysis exhibited a relatively large effect size that was biased toward OSE. However, the results were not significant. There are two possible reasons for the latter observation. One, with only three studies included in our analysis, our results are based on a very small sample size. Second, the subjects evaluated for visuospatial attention were mostly young adults. Thus, the absence of children and the elderly as study subjects may also have contributed to our insignificant results. The results of the present study also confirmed that no significant difference exists between the two exercise modes regarding the performance of processing-speed-related tasks [48]. To further enrich and support the findings of the cross-sectional studies examined, we analyzed four intervention studies. The main reason for incorporating the intervention studies was to facilitate causal inference. Of the four articles we examined, two [24; 52] provided support that OSE is better \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Moderator Variable** & **Level** & **Number of Studies** & **Effect Size** & **95\% CI** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Age & Young adults & 8 & 0.384 & \(-\)0.097, 1.213 & 0.002 \\ Elderly & 6 & 0.197 & 0.033, 0.923 & 0.105 \\ \hline Study quality & High Moderate Low & 4 & 0.639 & 0.335, 1.213 & 0.000 \\ \(\sim\) & Moderate Low & 9 & 0.235 & 0.033, 0.923 & 0.025 \\ \(\sim\) & Low & 2 & 0.034 & \(-\)0.097, 0.129 & 0.892 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Moderator analysis for OSE versus CSE. for cognitive promotion, one study showed that OSE and CSE have unique advantages for specific cognitive subfunctions [23], and the final study showed no difference between the two exercise modes at the behavioral level [21]. The results of the present meta-analysis indicate that there was no significant difference in the promotion of cognitive ability between OSE and CSE. Possible reasons for this result are that there were not many intervention studies available that have investigated the effects of these two modes of exercise on cognition, and only one of the four papers we examined could cause a large error in the meta-analysis. Therefore, in future studies, it will be important to include a greater number of intervention studies to ensure that reliable results are obtained. Second, the cognitive improvement from exercise appears to be related to intervention duration. This finding is supported by a recent systematic review in which it is demonstrated that only long-term exercise plays a positive role in brain function and structure [18]. For our meta-analysis, we included three long-term exercise studies [23; 24; 52], as well as a short-term exercise study [21].