Snowboarding, downhill skiing, mountain biking, and any martial art. These are from personal experience, I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.
Even weight training, which is an experimental group in this article, when done properly, requires high levels of neuro-muscular coordination and development. I am always weary of studies that evaluate “strength training” because there are so many different approaches with wildly different outcomes. Let’s just say that a max effort squat by an athlete with around two years of proper training emphasizing technique requires a hell of a lot more coordination than busting a move on the dance floor. I’ve been weight training for 15 years and I still feel like I am learning something new every time I get under the bar with the right mindset. The mindset part is key, because if you are just going through the motions then you’re not developing new skills. But I would bet a lot of money that top level strength athletes would say that their form is far from “perfect” and that this the area that affords the biggest opportunity for improvement.
This is the part where I’m going to be brash. Unless you tell me exactly what defines a strength training regimen in your study, I will assume it’s something along the lines of curls and lunges done with tiny dumbbells over a large amount of reps. Especially if your study calls it “repetitive”. There’s nothing repetitive about proper strength training. Every rep that’s done mindfully affords a unique learning opportunity.
Sports simply too complex to categorize in simple terms like “dancing” or “resistance training”. In the context of experimental design, our definitions have to be much more precise.
Having said all that, this is how I interpret this article: “Learning complex motor skills that require high levels of attention is better for the brain than doing 100 curls with 3 lb dumbbells.” And my response to that is “no shit”.