HIIT the Road Jack: An Exploratory Study on the Effects of an Acute Bout of Cardiovascular High-Intensity Interval Training on Piano Learning

Abstract

Pairing high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with motor skill acquisition may improve learning of some implicit motor sequences (albeit with some variability), but it is unclear if HIIT enhances explicit learning of motor sequences. We asked whether a single bout of HIIT after non-musicians learned to play a piano melody promoted better retention of the melody than low-intensity interval training (LIIT). Further, we investigated whether HIIT facilitated transfer of learning to a new melody. We generated individualized exercise protocols by having participants (n = 25) with little musical training undergo a graded maximal exercise test (GXT) to determine their cardiorespiratory fitness (VO_{2 peak}) and maximum power output (W_max). In a subsequent session, participants practiced a piano melody (skill acquisition) and were randomly assigned to a single bout of HIIT or LIIT. Retention of the piano melody was tested 1 hour, 1 day, and 1 week after skill acquisition. We also evaluated transfer to learning a new melody 1 week after acquisition. Pitch and rhythm accuracy were analyzed with linear mixed-effects modeling. HIIT did not enhance sequence-specific retention of pitch or rhythmic elements of the piano melody, but there was modest evidence that HIIT facilitated transfer to learning a new melody. We tentatively conclude that HIIT enhances explicit, task-general motor consolidation.

Keywords: cardiovascular exercise; consolidation; explicit; motor learning; music; sequence learning; transfer.

FIGURE 1

Methods. (A) The study consisted of four sessions (details are in the “Materials and Methods” section): During session 1, participants underwent a graded maximal exercise test. During session 2, participants practiced a melody on a piano keyboard (piano acquisition) and underwent either high- or low-intensity interval training (HIIT or LIIT) on a stationary cycle ergometer (D). They completed retention tests 1-h (session 2), 24-h (session 3), and 7-days (session 4) after initial training. During session 4, they also practiced a new melody in the transfer task. (B) The dependent variables were pitch and rhythm accuracy. Pitch accuracy was measured as the number of correctly performed notes divided by the longer of either the sequence length or the number of performed notes. Rhythm accuracy was measured as the number of correctly performed inter-onset intervals divided by the longer of either the inter-onset interval sequence length or the number of performed inter-onset intervals. (C) The piano acquisition protocol consisted of six blocks. In blocks 1–3, participants completed five rounds of a trial where they listened to the melody (listen), a trial in which they played along with visual cues from a computer game and heard their auditory feedback (train), and a trial in which they performed the melody in the absence of visual cueing while hearing their auditory feedback (test). In blocks 4–6 participants had the opportunity to complete five rounds of a listen trial (hearing the melody) and a test trial (performing the melody without visual cueing while hearing their auditory feedback). However, once a participant reached the criterion of performing the pitch sequence correctly in three consecutive trials, the acquisition phase was concluded (See section “Trial Types” for more information). (D) Participants were randomized into either a high- or low-intensity interval training group (HIIT or LIIT). They cycled at a cadence between 70 and 90 revolutions per minute (RPM). They first began a warm-up and then each group alternated between their personalized high and low intensities. There was a cool-down after the exercise protocol. (E) Retention tests, conducted at 1-h, 24-h, and 7-days after acquisition, consisted of two listen trials and ten test trials.

FIGURE 2

Trial Types. (A) Training trial with visual cues. (B) Test trial in blocks 1–3 without visual cueing. (C) Test trial in blocks 4–6 without on-screen keyboard.

FIGURE 3

Familiarization melodies. (A) Melody 1. (B) Melody 2. (C) Melody 3.

FIGURE 4

Piano melodies. (A) Melody 1. (B) Melody 2.

FIGURE 5

Results. The data points represent the mean and the error bars represent the standard error of the mean. For individual participants’ performance curves, see Supplementary Figure S2 in the Supplementary Material. (A) Acquisition (Recall that not all participants completed all trials in blocks 4, 5, and 6 because they practiced until the reached a criterion of performing three consecutive test trials correctly. Therefore there are fewer participants displayed in blocks 4, 5, and 6 than in blocks 1, 2, and 3 (See section “Blocks” for more information). (B) Retention. (Last 10 Trials: data from the last ten trials each participant completed, R1: 1-h retention test, R24: 24-h retention test, R7: 7-day retention test). (C) Transfer. (D) Acquisition vs. transfer. *p < 0.05.

FIGURE 6

Rhythm accuracy in transfer vs. acquisition. The data points represent the mean and the error bars represent the standard error of the mean. Rhythm accuracy in transfer vs. acquisition averaged across blocks 1–3. The bar graph shows that the HIIT group performed better during transfer than during acquisition and that there was no corresponding difference in the LIIT group. The data from Figure 5D were replotted here to more accurately parallel the statistical analysis that was performed. Note that the scale of this figure is different than Figure 5D.