Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT02863731

Effect of Alternating Postures on Cognitive Performance

Prolonged sitting is a risk factor for cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, diabetes, several types of cancer and all-cause mortality. In combination with static and awkward postures, the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases can increase further. Although the implementation of sit-to-stand or active workstations can help to reduce sitting time, improve physical activity at work and promote health benefits, it might also lead to changes in cognitive functions such as productivity. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short-term effect of alternating working postures on cognitive performance for healthy people.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Sedentary Lifestyle Behavior Sedentary Behavior

Age range

18 year–39 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria

Linz, Upper Austria, 4020, Austria

About this study

Measurements were made in a laboratory. They were made on two different days with an interval of 7 days between sessions. Laboratory tests were conducted in a controlled, simulated work-space located at the University of Applied Sciences Campus Linz. All laboratory measurements were made in a controlled laboratory at the campus site Linz of the University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria. Temperature, air flow, humidity, lighting conditions (artificial light only) and noise level were controlled and set to be consistent with the subjects' typical working environment.

During the laboratory measurements, subjects either stood or sat upright in an ergonomic office chair, according to the study protocol. Subjects were encouraged to work as fast and as accurately as they could. To ensure identical testing conditions between subjects and to not unduly influence physiological parameters such as heart rate variability (HRV), subjects were required to minimize excessive movement (e.g. standing up during the sitting periods).

In the first (initial) phase participants were familiarized with the study protocol. Sitting time and weekly physical activity were determined via the long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ, only on the first day of measurement). Examples of each cognitive test implemented in the cognitive phase were executed according to their guidelines. A 30 minute break in a sitting posture was used to ascertain baseline heart-rate level. Baseline heart-rate was calculated after a 20 minute rest for a 5 minute interval.

In the second (cognitive) phase subjects participated in a test battery containing five blocks. Each block consisted of a working speed test (text editing task), an attentional test (d2R-test of attention) and a reaction time test (Stroop-test). These tests lasted for 30 minutes to fulfill recommendations regarding postural changes. To simulate "common" working conditions (computer based and non-computer based tasks), digital (text editing task, Stroop-test) as well as pen & paper (d2R-test) versions of the implemented tests were used.

For the intervention group, the cognitive blocks were executed in an alternating posture (sit - stand - sit - stand - sit) either on the first or the second day of measurement (cross-over design). To generate control periods, this procedure was executed in an sitting posture only (sit - sit - sit - sit - sit) for the non-interventional day. For the control group, both days of measurement were executed in sitting posture only (sit - sit - sit - sit - sit ).

In the third (final) phase participants were asked to estimate their workload by means of the Task Load Index questionnaire developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA-TLX), followed by a 30 minutes resting phase in a sitting posture. During both 30 min resting phases (initial & final) participants watched documentaries and were encouraged not to talk.

Heart-rate and trunk movements were measured from the start of the study protocol until the next morning by means of an mobile ECG-recorder.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Healthy Caucasian (no acute or chronic diseases)
  • Normal weight or overweight (BMI: 18.5 - 30.0 kg/m²)
  • Regular computer users
  • Fluent German speakers
  • Consented to participate

Exclusion criteria

  • Obesity (BMI > 30.0 kg/m²)
  • Experience in sit-to-stand workstations
  • Acute or chronic diseases
  • Inability to stand
  • Visual impairments that had not been corrected
  • Color blindness
  • Regular heavy smokers (> 10 cigarettes /day)
  • Not consented to participate

Treatment and study plan

Alternating working postures, first day

Other

On the first day of measurement participants execute five test battery trials in alternating postures (sit/stand/sit/stand/sit). On the second day of measurement participants execute the test battery in a sitting posture (sit/sit/sit/sit/sit).

Alternating working postures, second day

Other

On the first day of measurement participants execute five test battery trials in a sitting posture (sit/sit/sit/sit/sit). On the second day of measurement participants execute the test battery in alternating postures (sit/stand/sit/stand/sit).

Primary outcomes

  1. Reaction time

    Time frame: 2 experimental days

    Reaction time is a commonly measured parameter to describe mental states, fatigue or performance in ergonomic research. As the effect of alternating postures on reaction time is still unclear, a digital version of the Color-Word-Conflict-Stroop-Test has been implemented.

    It contained 190 congruent, incongruent and neutral tasks and required approximately 10 min to simulate long-lasting monotonous office screen work. The reaction time was measured and recorded automatically. Outliers (values outside of the limits of 3 standard deviations) have been automatically eliminated. The Stroop-Test is characterized by a high test-retest reliability.

    Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the Stroop-test either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in reaction time and accuracy between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.

  2. Attentional performance

    Time frame: 2 experimental days

    As the effect of alternating postures on attentional performance is still unclear, an attentional performance test called "d2R-test of attention" has been implemented. The d2R-test was executed as a pen and paper version. Therefore, it enabled screen breaks during the test protocol and simulated paper-related office work. The d2R-Test is characterized by a high test-retest reliability and do not require any specific previous knowledge except of rudimentary language skills. Normative values for the d2R-test are available for different countries.

    Attentional performance and accuracy were manually determined according to the d2R-guidelines.

    Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the d2R-test either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in attentional performance and accuracy between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.

  3. Working speed

    Time frame: 2 experimental days

    Physical efforts when performing standardized tests (e.g. standing or walking) can negatively influence cognitive parameters as well as working speed. To determine the effect of alternating postures on working speed a digital text editing task encouraging participants to fill in spaces in an ergonomic guideline text for 10 min was used.

    Working speed (words per minute) and accuracy (relative error) have been manually calculated.

    Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants executed the text editing task either in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in working speed between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.

  4. Workload perception

    Time frame: 2 experimental days

    Sit-to-stand workstations can evoke positive as well as negative associations. A common method to rate workload perception is the NASA-TLX questionnaire (Task Load Index, National Aeronautics and Space Administration). For reasons of simplicity and unmodified sensitivity, the short version of this questionnaire (RTLX, raw task load index), consisting of six major items, was used. Influences on workload perception based on unweighted items in the RTLX were negated due to the cross-over design.

    Due to the cross-over design of the study two days were necessary to determine the interventional effect. According to the group allocation the participants scored their perceived workload after executing several cognitive tests in an alternating or sitting posture. Differences in workload perception between "alternating" and "sitting" days will be analyzed.

Other outcomes

  1. Body movements

    Time frame: 2 experimental days

    Body movements can alter physiological parameters and cognitive performance. Especially small movements during longer time intervals are very hard to classify by means of personal observations. Therefore, a three-dimensional accelerometer - placed on the sternum via a neoprene breast belt - was used to objectively measure body movements. Upper body placements of accelerometers have been shown to reliably detect body movements, and sit-to-stand as well as stand-to-sit transitions. To reduce the total number of sensors, a HRV-recorder with integrated 3D-accelerometer was used.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria

Other

Collaborators

  • University of Vienna

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2014
Primary completion
2015
Study completion
2015
First posted
Aug 11, 2016
Registry last updated
Aug 17, 2016

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.