Active workstations are associated with improved health outcomes, but differences in cognitive and typing outcomes between the types of active workstations are unclear. We addressed two main questions: (1) Are there differences in cognitive and typing performance between seated and active workstations? (2) Are there differences in cognitive and typing performance between cycling and treadmill workstations, specifically? Participants included 137 healthy young adults (74 female, mean age = 20.8 years) who completed two sessions. At session one (baseline), all participants completed cognitive and typing tests including the Rey-Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test, a typing test, and a flanker task while sitting at rest. At session two, participants were randomized to an active workstation group (treadmill or cycling desk) during which they performed the tests listed above in a randomized fashion, using alternate versions when available. Participants showed significantly better attention and cognitive control scores during the active session as compared to the seated session, but worse verbal memory scores during the active session. Participants were faster and more accurate at typing during the active session relative to the seated session. There were no significant differences between cycling or treadmill workstations on any cognitive or typing outcomes. Improvements during active sessions may be influenced by practice effects, although alternate forms were used when possible. We conclude that active workstations do not seem to largely impact cognitive abilities, with the exception of a slight decrease in verbal memory performance. Findings suggest active workstations, whether walking or cycling, are useful to improve physical activity, particularly when completing tasks that do not require verbal memory recall.
Objective The aim of the study was to compare the relative predictive value of Marshall Classification System and Rotterdam scores on long-term rehabilitation outcomes. This study hypothesized that Rotterdam would outperform Marshall Classification System. Design The study used an observational cohort design with a consecutive sample of 88 participants (25 females, mean age = 42.0 [SD = 21.3]) with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury who were admitted to trauma service with subsequent transfer to the rehabilitation unit between February 2009 and July 2011 and who had clearly readable computed tomography scans. Twenty-three participants did not return for the 9-mo postdischarge follow-up. Day-of-injury computed tomography images were scored using both Marshall Classification System and Rotterdam criteria by two independent raters, blind to outcomes. Functional outcomes were measured by length of stay in rehabilitation and the cognitive and motor subscales of the Functional Independence Measure at rehabilitation discharge and 9-mo postdischarge follow-up. Results Neither Marshall Classification System nor Rotterdam scales as a whole significantly predicted Functional Independence Measure motor or cognitive outcomes at discharge or 9-mo follow-up. Both scales, however, predicted length of stay in rehabilitation. Specific Marshall scores (3 and 6) and Rotterdam scores (5 and 6) significantly predicted subacute outcomes such as Functional Independence Measure cognitive at discharge from rehabilitation and length of stay. Conclusions Marshall Classification System and Rotterdam scales may have limited utility in predicting long-term functional outcome, but specific Marshall and Rotterdam scores, primarily linked to increased severity and intracranial pressure, may predict subacute outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.