Does type of active workstation matter? A randomized comparison of cognitive and typing performance between rest, cycling, and treadmill active workstations

Abstract

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.

Effects of Combining Occupationally Relevant Physical and Cognitive Tasks. A Systematic Review

“…Twenty-nine studies investigated the effects of lowintensity dynamic contractions combined with a cog-nitive load (Table 1). Studies in this category reported an effect of concurrent load used assembly (Shaikh et al, 2012), computer work (Finsen et al, 2001b;Leyman et al, 2004), and active workstations (Larson et al, 2015;Frodsham et al, 2020) as the physical task, while cognitive tasks were instructions necessary to accomplish the physical task (Finsen et al, 2001b;Shaikh et al, 2012), or an Auditory Verbal Learning Test (Larson et al, 2015;Frodsham et al, 2020). Among the studies reporting no or small effects of concurrent load, the most common physical task was computer work (Finsen et al, 2001a(Finsen et al, , 2001bLeyman et al, 2004;Bloemsaat et al, 2005).…”

“…Studies in this category reporting a medium or large effect of concurrent load used a range of physical and cognitive tasks, for example, computer tasks (Ekberg et al, 1995;Birch et al, 2000;Alkjaer et al, 2005), active workstations (Frodsham et al, 2020;Schellewald et al, 2021), and handgrip (Guillery et al, 2013); in combination with Stroop Color Word tests (Ekberg et al, 1995;Alkjaer et al, 2005;Schellewald et al, 2021), visual memory tasks (Guillery et al, 2013) or instructions needed to perform the physical task (Birch et al, 2000;Nino et al, 2020). Studies reporting no or small effects typically used a physical task adopted from an occupational setting, such as pipetting (Srinivasan et al, 2015(Srinivasan et al, , 2016, assembly (Biondi et al, 2021), and computer work (Ekberg et al, 1995;Birch et al, 2000;Laursen, Jensen and Ratkevicius, 2001), in combination with instructions needed to perform the physical task (Srinivasan et al, 2015(Srinivasan et al, , 2016, n-back (Biondi et al, 2021), and Stroop Color Word tests (Ekberg et al, 1995;Laursen et al, 2002).…”

“…Eight studies addressed performance (Birch et al, 2000;Alkjaer et al, 2005;Ohlinger et al, 2011;Srinivasan et al, 2016;Huang et al, 2019;Frodsham et al, 2020;Marshall et al, 2021;Schellewald et al, 2021). Four studies found no significant or small effects (Alkjaer et al, 2005;Ohlinger et al, 2011;Srinivasan et al, 2015;Huang et al, 2019).…”

Sport and physical activity participation in the workplace: the role of employees' self-perception

“…Absenteeism, presenteeism and cognitive ability have been identified as companies' business performances that can be influenced by PA (Andersen et al, 2015;Frodsham et al, 2020).…”

Lecciones activas: efectos de un programa escolar de actividad física mediante bike desks en adolescentes = Physically active lessons: effects of a school-based physical activity program using bike desks in adolescents

“…Por otro lado, la falta de existencia de perjuicio académico al introducir actividad física en las lecciones es muy positiva para la intervención y concuerda con otros programas de actividad física en el aula como los de van den Berg et al (2016) y más concretamente con estudios anteriores sobre active desks (Sherry et al, 2016) y con intervenciones de bike desks (Joubert et al, 2017;Torbeyns et al, 2017). Un estudio con adultos concluyó que no hay diferencias significativas cognitivas entre realizar tareas sentado, pedaleando o trotando en un active desk (Frodsham et al, 2020). Incluso, el reciente meta-análisis de Haverkamp et al (2020) analizó más de setenta intervenciones de actividad física en adolescentes y jóvenes encontrando que tanto las intervenciones puntuales como aquellas a largo plazo parecían ser elementos prometedores para mejorar aspectos cognitivos.…”