Are You Sitting Down: Cognitive Exectutive Function Task Comparison Between Seated and Standing Positions (sitstandcef)
|(Focus) Posture Effect on Cognitive Performance||Behavioral: posture: sitting or standing||Phase 1 Phase 2|
|Study Design:||Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary Purpose: Basic Science
|Official Title:||Are You Sitting Down: Cognitive Exectutive Function Task Comparison Between Seated and Standing Positions Using Assessments From CNS Vital Signs Test Battery|
- evidence of postural effect on cognitive performance [ Time Frame: within the hour ]use of standard cognitive exectutive function measures carried out in seated / standing position.
- Interaction between posture and phyiological state against cognitive executive function performance [ Time Frame: with the hour ]Other key measures that will be used to evaluate the intervention are heart rate variablility, heart rate and eeg.
|Study Start Date:||March 2012|
|Study Completion Date:||March 2012|
|Primary Completion Date:||March 2012 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Behavioral: posture: sitting or standing
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
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01641588
|University of Southampton|
|Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom, SO171BJ|
|Principal Investigator:||m.c. schraefel, phd||University of Southampton|