Are You Sitting Down: Cognitive Exectutive Function Task Comparison Between Seated and Standing Positions

NCT ID: NCT01641588

Last Updated: 2012-07-17

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE1/PHASE2

Total Enrollment

19 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2012-03-31

Study Completion Date

2012-03-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The aim of this trial has been to explore the effects of self-positioning on cognitive performance in the work environment using a standardized cognitive test battery to evaluate executive function under two conditions: sitting and standing.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

The aim of this trial has been to explore the effects of self-positioning on cognitive performance in the work environment using a standardized cognitive test battery to evaluate executive function under two conditions: sitting and standing.

Methods: This counterbalanced controlled trial involved 17 men (mean age +/-SD: 29.8 +/- 5.5) all with a science background and graduate degrees. The participants were accustomed to working in an open environment and none of whom currently using standing desks. We used a modified version of the CNS Vital Signs (CNSVS) test battery to assess cognitive executive function (CEF) in two typical work positions - standing and seated. Participants were randomly assigned to a standing or seated position to begin the testing procedure. Upon completion of the first test round they were instructed to rest for 10 min. in a dark room with no distractions before commencing the second round of testing positioned in the alternate fashion. The main outcome measure was a CNSVS score in each of the six CEF domains in the two different work positions

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

(Focus) Posture Effect on Cognitive Performance

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

cognitive executive function posture cognitive performance heart rate eeg

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

NA

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Study Purpose

BASIC_SCIENCE

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

posture: sitting or standing

Intervention: postural position - whether seated or standing. The person carries out a battery of cognitive executive functioning assessments delivered via a laptop and carried out with the laptop keyboard while either seated or standing.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

(no other names)

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* male
* computer savvy
* advanced education degree

Exclusion Criteria

* ADD
* on any medication
* currently a person who uses a standing desk
Minimum Eligible Age

21 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

40 Years

Eligible Sex

MALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Royal Academy of Engineering

UNKNOWN

Sponsor Role collaborator

Microsoft Research

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role collaborator

University of Southampton

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

M C Schraefel

Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

m.c. schraefel, phd

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Southampton

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

University of Southampton

Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United Kingdom

Related Links

Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/340535/

initial tech report related to this study

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

RAEngSRF

Identifier Type: OTHER_GRANT

Identifier Source: secondary_id

1497

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id