Self-regulation refers to the individual’s capacity to manage emotions, thoughts, and behaviors, adapt to changing situations and pursue personal goals. The concept encompasses a range of cognitive and behavioral processes, including the inhibition of impulsive actions, postponement of gratifications, sustained attention, problem solving, planning and task completion (Berger, 2011; Warner et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2024). It also involves employing strategies to maintain emotions on a manageable level and recover from overwhelming experiences (Butler, 2024). Among school-aged children and adolescents, brain structures and related self-regulation skills are still developing, making emotional and behavioral challenges common (Nelson et al., 2019). Moreover, many children and adolescents experience difficulties that adversely affect their learning and capacity to initiate and maintain social relationships (Berger, 2011; Robson et al., 2020; Butler, 2024). Over time, deficits in self-regulation may increase risk of various health issues including obesity, mental health disorders, anxiety, depression, hyperactivity and anti-social behavior. These individuals are also more vulnerable to school drop-out, substance abuse, aggressive behavior and criminality (Berger, 2011; Robson et al., 2020).

The development of self-regulation is influenced by a complex interplay of factors, including genetics, maturation, life experiences, social interactions with peers and caregivers, and other environmental conditions (Berger, 2011). Protective factors such as sensitive caregiving and secure attachment support the development of regulation skills (Siegel, 2020), whereas adverse experiences—such as physical and emotional neglect, abuse, and exposure to war—are associated with increased risk of regulation difficulties. Additional contributing factors include congenital temperament and neurological conditions such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and sensory processing disorder (Berger, 2011; Blair, 2018), as well as early and extensive exposure to digital devices and the use of such devices by early caregivers to regulate their children’s emotions (Konok et al., 2024). Thus, to facilitate learning and social interactions, all children and adolescents require tailored support in developing regulation skills. This is particularly the case for the vulnerable ones.

Over the years, self-regulation has been examined from a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives such as behavioral genetics, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and health psychology (Backer-Grøndahl and Nærde, 2015). Recently, increasing attention has also been directed toward neurobiological perspectives which has yielded insights into the underlying physiological mechanisms and processes. From an integrated, neurobiological perspective, self-regulation is understood as a dynamic process involving the prefrontal cortex alongside physiological, attentional, emotional and stress-related arousal systems (Blair, 2018; Meyes, 2000; Siegel, 2020). The prefrontal cortex facilitates voluntary, cognitive regulation of emotions, thoughts and actions, whereas the arousal systems govern fluctuations in bodily states. Within this framework, executive functioning, behavioral responses, neurochemical markers (i.e., cortisol) and physiological indicators (i.e., heart rate, blood pressure) are all considered reflective of an individual’s regulatory state (Meyes, 2000).

A key factor of this system is its bidirectional interconnectivity. Cognitive stimuli and voluntary engagement in embodied activities can modulate arousal systems, while changes in arousal levels, in turn, influence the functioning of the prefrontal cortex (Blair, 2018; Porges, 2011, 2017; Siegel, 2020; Dana, 2021; Porges and Porges, 2023; Butler, 2024). Consequently, regulation can be supported through two pathways: top-down and bottom-up. Top-down strategies involve conscious, cognitive efforts such as self-talk or logic-based activities (jigsaw puzzles, sudoku) (Butler, 2024), whereas bottom-up strategies rely on sensory and relational experiences including pleasant human voice, facial expressions, play (Porges, 2011, 2017; Porges and Porges, 2023), contact with other people, animals or the nature (Butler, 2024), sensory stimulation (Williams and Shellenberg, 1996), sensorimotor activities, rhythm, (Cheatum and Hammond, 2000; Warner et al., 2020), deep breathing, mindfullness, yoga, dance, martial arts, team sports, drama (van der Kolk, 2014) and physical activity (Porges and Porges, 2023).

Compared to top-down approaches, bottom-up strategies are less reliant on cognitive maturity and conscious processing, making them more accessible to younger children and individuals experiencing distress. In educational settings, where cognitive skills are often prioritized, bottom-up strategies offer a complementary approach to supporting the development and functioning of regulatory systems. These strategies may benefit all students and particularly the vulnerable ones (Wilson, 2023; Butler, 2024).

Previous reviews (Caragea et al., 2017; Pandey et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2021) suggest that a variety of interventions may be effective. Caragea et al. (2017) identified five neuro-educationally informed school interventions targeting either academic motivation, attention orientation, self-perception, cognitive and emotional engagement in learning or regulation of social and task-related behaviors, which all reported some positive outcomes. Small sample sizes (n = 36–167) and other methodological limitations undermine the reliability of the findings.

Pandey et al. (2018) reviewed 50 studies, including 17 cluster randomized trials and 32 randomized clinical trials, focusing on interventions targeting regulation skills. These were categorized into curriculum-based (n = 21), mindfullness and yoga (n = 8), family-based (n = 9), exercise-based (n = 6), and social and personal skills interventions (n = 6). Of these, 33 interventions demonstrated improvements in following domains; academic achievement (11 of 13), substance abuse (4 of 5), conduct disorders (2 of 2), social skills (2 of 2), depression (2 of 2), behavioral problems (2 of 2) and school suspensions (1 of 1). Success rates varied by intervention type: curriculum-based (76%), mindfullness and yoga (50%), family based (56%), exercise based (67%) and social and personal skills (67%).

Murray et al. (2021) conducted a review of 33 studies, categorized into emotion regulation (n = 12), cognitive regulation (n = 9), parent training (n = 3), physical activity (n = 7) and working memory (n = 3) interventions. Notably, significant positive outcomes were observed only in interventions targeting emotion regulation, with the most substantial effects reported among adolescents experiencing emotional distress. The authors highlighted that many of the included studies were of low methodological quality and lacked a solid theoretical framework.

Additionally, none of the three reviews (Caragea et al., 2017; Pandey et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2021) presents the included interventions in detail making it difficult to evaluate specific characteristics of successful interventions within each category. Also, there is little information about the participants. The only specifications are found in Murray et al. (2021) who mentioned including samples with anxiety, depression and ADHD, and in Pandey et al. (2018) who discussed shortly populations with greater risk for conduct problems and racial/ethnic minorities. The distribution of results across different populations was not clarified.

More recent research (Chesnais et al., 2023) indicates that various populations might respond differently to same intervention. To understand more about what works, with whom and under what circumstances, more in-depth research is needed. Also, there is a need for more focus on bottom-up strategies. Despite the extensive range discussed in the literature (Williams and Shellenberg, 1996; Cheatum and Hammond, 2000; van der Kolk, 2014; Porges, 2011, 2017; Warner et al., 2020; Porges and Porges, 2023; Butler, 2024), such strategies had only a marginal role in previous reviews (Caragea et al., 2017; Pandey et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2021) offering limited insight into potential applications and effectiveness within school contexts.

The aim of this study is to investigate the use and outcomes of bottom-up strategies in school-based interventions targeting self-regulation. Specifically, we seek to address the following research questions:

To address the research questions, we adopted a scoping review methodology, which according to Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and Levac et al. (2010) is well-suited for exploring the ‘extent, range and nature of research activity’ and for identifying ‘potential gaps in existing literature and research’. In line with their recommendations, the research questions of this study were developed through a series of preliminary searches designed to broadly explore the area of interest. We tested different search combinations and browsed results to get some overview of potential lines of research that could fit our aim of exploring school intervention studies addressing bottom-up strategies. The preliminary search indicated a fragmented and unevenly developed research field, which confirmed the suitability of a scoping review whose exploratory nature allows inclusion of a wide variety of articles. As the research questions were set, we conducted a systematic search using the databases ORIA (a shared search portal for Norwegian university, college and specialist libraries), PsycINFO, Web of Science, MEDLINE, PubMed and ERIC. Search terms were organized into five categories reflecting the theoretical foundations of the study: (1) Phenomenon: self-regulation, regulation, arousal, physiological regulation (2) Context: school, elementary school, secondary school, high school, physical education, education (3) Design: intervention, improving, model, application, program; (4) Content: vestibular, proprioception, tactile, sensory, movement, movement activities, sport, rhythm, dance, yoga, mindfulness, martial arts (5) Theoretical foundation: neurobiological, bottom-up, polyvagal, senso-motor, neuroeducation, educational neuroscience.

We included peer-reviewed articles published in English the last 20 years. Due to delays in the writing process, the period was later extended to a period of 21 years (2004–2025). Eligible studies had to present empirical data from school-based interventions, involving either general student populations or groups with known regulatory vulnerabilities. The age range was set between 6 and 18 years (grades 1 through high school). Two exceptions were made for studies where part of the participants were younger than six, provided that the majority of participants met the inclusion criteria.

Furthermore, studies were required to align with a neurobiological perspective on regulation, and to include measures involving physiological, neurochemical, behavioral or cognitive indicators of regulation. The intervention content had to be primarily composed of bottom-up strategies, and the type of activity had to be clearly presented. We excluded studies involving video games, information technology, clinical or therapeutical settings, and those in which cognitive strategies played an equal or greater role than bottom-up strategies. We made these exclusions to highlight our focus on body and physical movement as well as suitability of the interventions for the school context.

The first search phase 1 (Figure 1) was conducted in March 2024 and yielded a total of 1,023 matches in ORIA, PsycInfo and Web of Science. After removing duplicates, 985 sources remained. Of these, 64 met the inclusions criteria while 921 were excluded. Following abstract review, 28 more sources were excluded, leaving 36 articles for full-text review. Ultimately, 19 studies were included in the final analysis.

Due to long writing period, a second search phase was conducted in April 2025 (Figure 1). The second phase covered the months between March 2024 to April 2025, and it followed the same procedure using the same databases and search terms. This search returned 84 results, of which 81 were excluded based on title and abstract. The remaining 3 articles were reviewed in full text, but none met all the inclusions criteria. To strengthen the search, we included three additional databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, and ERIC) at the end of this phase. This supplementary search yielded 98 results, of which 91 were excluded based on title and abstract screening. Following full-text review, three additional articles were included, bringing the total number of articles to 22.

All four authors co-operated in defining inclusion and exclusion criteria and participated in the full-text review. The remainder of the search process was carried out by the first and fourth authors.

The subsequent synthesis offers an overview of bottom-up regulatory strategies and highlights the key findings derived from the reviewed literature. The included studies feature participants varying in nationality, age, and vulnerability to regulatory difficulties, and were conducted across a range of educational settings.

The review demonstrates that a diverse array of bottom-up strategies has been implemented in school settings to support and enhance self-regulation among children and adolescents. The characteristics of these interventions vary considerably across contextual factors, participant demographics, content, dosage and timing, methodological approaches and outcome measures. Overall, the findings are predominantly positive with 20 of 22 studies reporting improvements in one or more variables. However, certain nuances warrant attention. For instance, Leyland et al. (2018) and Wassenaar et al. (2021) reported no significant improvements, while Anzeneder et al. (2024) found either negative or no significant improvements in some variables. Hagins and Rundle (2016), and Fung et al. (2019) highlighted effect sizes being low to moderate.

Moreover, a subset of studies indicated that intervention effects may vary according to age (Chen et al., 2014), gender (Cañabate et al., 2020) and cultural background (Fung et al., 2019; Nguyen and Dorjee, 2022). Flook et al. (2010) reported stronger effects among participants with pre-existing regulatory difficulties (Flook et al., 2010), while Hagins and Rundle (2016) and Mendelson et al. (2010) emphasized the importance of attendance rates in determining intervention efficacy. Thus, the review suggests that a wide range of bottom-up strategies may be beneficial for supporting regulatory systems in school-aged populations. These strategies appear potentially effective across different subgroups and educational contexts. If so, bottom-up strategies could be used to foster learning and social relationships among vulnerable populations without disadvantaging others. Given the limited number of studies and participants included in the review and that no consistent patterns emerged linking specific intervention characteristics to positive outcomes, definitive conclusions cannot yet be drawn. More solid studies with a variety of populations are needed to better understand what works, and for whom.

Overall, the selection of articles in this review presents a somewhat more optimistic portrayal of the field compared to previous reviews which only partially supports the effectiveness of bottom-up strategies such as mindfulness, yoga, physical activity, and exercise (Pandey et al., 2018; Murray et al., 2021). In Murray et al. (2021), significant emotional improvements were observed exclusively among adolescents. One possible explanation for the more favorable outcomes in the present review is its emphasis on studies with a neurobiological foundation. As Murray et al. (2021) noted, a lack of robust theoretical foundation was a common limitation in many of the studies they reviewed. Addressing this issue may have potentially contributed to the identification of studies with more clearly articulated aims, content and measurement strategies. However, other factors may also be at play, including potential data bias. Despite utilizing multiple databases with broad coverage, some relevant studies may have been inadvertently excluded. Additionally, the relatively small number of total participants and the modes sample sizes within individual studies may have influenced the findings.

In accordance with the scoping review framework (Arksey and O'Malley, 2005), this review prioritized mapping the field rather than concluding a systematic evaluation of study quality. A more detailed statistical synthesis could have yielded a more nuanced understanding of intervention effects, but such an approach would have limited our opportunity to explore intervention characteristics in depth.

The review indicates that yoga, mindfulness and other introjective practices are the most commonly employed activities in school-based interventions targeting regulation. Other practices include play and playful activities, somatic stimulation, expressive dance, martial arts, gross motor activities and classroom climate interventions. Consequently, most of the activities proposed in the literature (Williams and Shellenberg, 1996; van der Kolk, 2014; Porges, 2011, 2017; Cheatum and Hammond, 2000; Warner et al., 2020; Porges and Porges, 2023; Butler, 2024) are presented. Notably, absent are, nature-based activities (Butler, 2024) and teachers’ use of voice and facial expressions. These areas remain underexplored and warrant future investigation. Furthermore, the uneven distribution of activities across the reviewed studies highlights the need for further exploration of play, somatic stimulation, dance, martial arts, team sports, gross motor activities and classroom climate interventions. Given the diversity of populations experiencing regulatory difficulties and the inherent heterogeneity within any school class, broadening the scope of empirical research on bottom-up strategies is urgently needed. While yoga, mindfulness and other introjective practices are easy to implement in school and appeal to many people, they may not work for all. Also, introjective practices facilitate dominantly downregulation, whereas a healthy ANS needs to be capable of both down-, up- and sideways regulating (Gray, 2017).

No clear patterns emerged indicating that any single activity or strategy was consistently more effective than others, although the evidence supporting introjective practices appears most robust. However, given that many of the other activities and strategies were examined in only one or two studies—or in combination with other elements—no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Additionally, introjective practices were frequently implemented alongside other strategies, complicating efforts to isolate their specific effects. Based on prior literature (Warner et al., 2020) which suggests that a combination of several types of stimuli may be more effective compared to isolated stimuli, it is plausible that the observed benefits stem from the combination of strategies rather than a single component. This hypothesis is further supported by research on whole-school approaches, which integrate various activities with cultural and psychosocial initiatives and involve children, school staff, caregivers, and other stakeholders (Goldberg et al., 2019). None of studies included in this review employed such comprehensive model. Future research should investigate both individual strategies and combinations to enable meaningful comparisons and conclusions.

Furthermore, no consistent associations were found between specific activities and particular outcomes. For example, introjective practices were linked to cognitive (Wisner and Starzec, 2016; Flook et al., 2010; Hagins and Rundle, 2016; Mancini, 2020; Rice et al., 2023), emotional (Mendelson et al., 2010; Wisner and Starzec, 2016; Kang et al., 2018; Bauer et al., 2019; Fung et al., 2019; Mancini, 2020; Cañabate et al., 2020; Nguyen and Dorjee, 2022; McMahon et al., 2021), behavioral (Flook et al., 2010; Wisner and Starzec, 2016; Fung et al., 2019; Mancini, 2020; Carro et al., 2023; Rice et al., 2023), and neurochemical (Carro et al., 2023) outcomes. Conversely, cognitive outcomes were associated with introjective practices, martial arts (Lakes et al., 2013; Mancini, 2020), small-sided games and drills (Lind et al., 2018), light aerobic exercise, HIIT (Latino et al., 2025) and gross motor activities (Chen et al., 2014; Anzeneder et al., 2024), while emotional outcomes were observed in studies involving introjective practices, martial arts (Mancini, 2020), play (Flook et al., 2010; Hagins and Rundle, 2016; Miller et al., 2017; Carro et al., 2023; Rice et al., 2023), rituals of entering and leaving and classroom climate (Cañabate et al., 2020).

Thus, findings suggest that various bottom-up strategies can influence multiple dimensions of regulation, and that each regulatory domain—cognitive, emotional, behavioral and neurobiological—can be addressed through diverse approaches. From a neurobiological perspective, which conceptualizes the prefrontal cortex and the arousal systems as integrated and reciprocal components of regulation (Meyes, 2000; Blair, 2018; Porges, 2011, 2017; Dana, 2021; Porges and Porges, 2023; Butler, 2024), this multiplicity of effective strategies is theoretically coherent. Nonetheless, to understand more about the underlying mechanisms and to be able to create targeted interventions, further research is needed to determine whether specific strategies are better suited to particular aims, contexts, or participant groups.

Furthermore, the selection of measures and outcomes in reviewed studies is closely tied to their theoretical and/or empirical foundations. For instance, isolated gross motor activities were employed in only two studies, both which were theoretically grounded in the presumed relationship between physical activity and cognitive function. Consequently, these studies focused exclusively on cognitive outcomes (Chen et al., 2014; Anzeneder et al., 2024). This illustrates how theoretical and methodological choices significantly shape the results, and by extension, influence what is known about the effects of each intervention strategy. To gain a more nuanced understanding of the potential of each strategy, it is essential to incorporate a broader range of perspectives in future research. To avoid the challenges identified in previous research, such a broadening of perspectives should be carried out in a systematic manner.

The theoretical and methodological foundations across the included articles exhibit considerable variation, reflecting a fragmented and heterogenous research landscape. Diverse conceptualizations of regulation are evident, accompanied by a wide array of measures and outcomes. This multiplicity of perspectives and methodological approaches complicated the synthesis process and limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of specific strategies.

Accordingly, there is a need for a clearer terminological consensus and future research to be anchored in robust theoretical frameworks and to employ methodologically rigorous designs. Such efforts have been requested by others too (Chen et al., 2024) and are essential for building consensus within the field and advancing a deeper understanding of what works, how it works, and why it works in the context of improving regulation.

Notably, the cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions of regulation (Meyes, 2000) were prominently represented in the reviewed studies, whereas physiological and neurochemical measures were employed in only three (Bauer et al., 2019; Carro et al., 2023; Mastromatteo et al., 2023). This imbalance highlights the need for further exploration of the physiological and neurochemical aspects of regulation. Integrating these measures with cognitive, emotional and behavioral assessments could yield valuable insights into the interrelationships among different regulatory domains.

Studies that incorporate multiple levels of measurement, such as those by Wisner and Starzec (2016) and Carro et al. (2023), suggest potential overlaps and interactions between different domains of regulation. Such findings may contribute to the identification of the most appropriate and valid methods for assessing regulation in children and adolescents, as well as enhance our understanding of the mechanisms underlying development of regulatory skills and intervention efficacy. Effective, knowledge-based interventions could further benefit especially the vulnerable populations who run a risk of health and behavioral problems associated with low regulatory skills (Berger, 2011; Robson et al., 2020).

This review demonstrates that a wide array of bottom-up strategies has been implemented in school settings to support and enhance regulation among children and adolescents, with the majority of studies reporting positive outcomes. This indicates that such strategies could be used to facilitate learning and social relationships among vulnerable populations without disadvantaging others. However, the field is characterized by considerable heterogeneity in terms of intervention type, target populations, and outcome measures. No consistent patterns have emerged regarding the relative effectiveness of specific strategies.

Introjective practices, such as yoga and mindfulness, are the most extensively studied and currently possess the strongest evidence base. In contrast, other approaches—including play, dance, gross motor activities, and classroom climate interventions—remain underexplored. Expanding the scope of research is essential to capturing the complexity of regulatory processes and the multitude of difficulties and interests among children and adolescents. Notably, none of the reviewed studies employed a whole-school approach which could offer a more comprehensive understanding of regulation and facilitate the integration of intervention across subjects, activities and stakeholders.

The lack of theoretical and methodological coherence across studies further complicates the interpretation of findings and limits the generalizability of results. These inconsistencies underscore the need for more rigorous research, grounded in robust theoretical frameworks and encompassing a broader spectrum of strategies. Such research is essential to determine which approaches are most effective in specific contexts and for different student populations.