Effect of Alternating Postures on Cognitive Performance
NCT ID: NCT02863731
Last Updated: 2016-08-17
Study Results
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.
COMPLETED
NA
46 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2014-01-31
2015-03-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Breaking of Sitting Time Prevents Lower Leg Swelling
NCT05173558
Does Overpractice Improve Motor Learning?
NCT02898701
Metric Charcteristics of Sit-to-stand Tests in Patients After Lower-limb Amputation
NCT04293237
Effects of Specific Balance Training Prior TKR Surgery in the Early Postoperative Outcomes
NCT02995668
Bowen Technique With Retro-walking on Hamstring Flexibility in Knee Osteoarthritis
NCT07238751
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
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.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
CROSSOVER
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Alternating postures: first day
Alternating body postures on the first day of measurement. Sitting body posture on the second day of measurement.
Alternating working postures, first day
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 postures: second day
Alternating body postures on the second day of measurement. Sitting body posture on the first day of measurement.
Alternating working postures, second day
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).
Control group
Sitting body posture on both days of measurement.
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Alternating working postures, first day
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
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).
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Normal weight or overweight (BMI: 18.5 - 30.0 kg/m²)
* Regular computer users
* Fluent German speakers
* Consented to participate
Exclusion Criteria
* 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
18 Years
39 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Vienna
OTHER
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Bernhard Schwartz
Research Associate
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Bernhard Schwartz, MSc
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
Linz, Upper Austria, Austria
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Neuhaus M, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Owen N, Eakin EG. Workplace sitting and height-adjustable workstations: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Jan;46(1):30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.09.009.
Commissaris DA, Konemann R, Hiemstra-van Mastrigt S, Burford EM, Botter J, Douwes M, Ellegast RP. Effects of a standing and three dynamic workstations on computer task performance and cognitive function tests. Appl Ergon. 2014 Nov;45(6):1570-8. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.003. Epub 2014 Jun 17.
Bates ME, Lemay EP Jr. The d2 Test of attention: construct validity and extensions in scoring techniques. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2004 May;10(3):392-400. doi: 10.1017/S135561770410307X.
Best JR, Nagamatsu LS, Liu-Ambrose T. Improvements to executive function during exercise training predict maintenance of physical activity over the following year. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 May 27;8:353. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00353. eCollection 2014.
Van der Elst W, Van Boxtel MP, Van Breukelen GJ, Jolles J. The Stroop color-word test: influence of age, sex, and education; and normative data for a large sample across the adult age range. Assessment. 2006 Mar;13(1):62-79. doi: 10.1177/1073191105283427.
Lynch BM. Sedentary behavior and cancer: a systematic review of the literature and proposed biological mechanisms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Nov;19(11):2691-709. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0815. Epub 2010 Sep 10.
Owen N, Sparling PB, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Matthews CE. Sedentary behavior: emerging evidence for a new health risk. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Dec;85(12):1138-41. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0444. No abstract available.
Brown WJ, Miller YD, Miller R. Sitting time and work patterns as indicators of overweight and obesity in Australian adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 Nov;27(11):1340-6. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802426.
Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Schrempf A, Probst K, Haller M, Baca A. Effect of a novel two-desk sit-to-stand workplace (ACTIVE OFFICE) on sitting time, performance and physiological parameters: protocol for a randomized control trial. BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 15;16:578. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3271-y.
Schwartz B, Kapellusch JM, Schrempf A, Probst K, Haller M, Baca A. Effect of alternating postures on cognitive performance for healthy people performing sedentary work. Ergonomics. 2018 Jun;61(6):778-795. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2017.1417642. Epub 2017 Dec 28.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
834185
Identifier Type: OTHER_GRANT
Identifier Source: secondary_id
AO-8735-2
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.