Cited by 63Physical Activity and HealthErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFacilities and Workplace Management

Effect of Standing or Walking at a Workstation on Cognitive Function: A Randomized Counterbalanced Trial

Bantoft, Christina, Summers, Mathew J., Tranent, Peter J., Palmer, Matthew A., Cooley, P. Dean, Pedersen, Scott J.·2016·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

Objective: In the present study, we examined the effect of working while seated, while standing, or while walking on measures of short-term memory, working memory, selective and sustained attention, and information-processing speed. Background: The advent of computer-based technology has revolutionized the adult workplace, such that average adult full-time employees spend the majority of their working day seated. Prolonged sitting is associated with increasing obesity and chronic health conditions in children and adults. One possible intervention to reduce the negative health impacts of the modern office environment involves modifying the workplace to increase incidental activity and exercise during the workday. Although modifications, such as sit-stand desks, have been shown to improve physiological function, there is mixed information regarding the impact of such office modification on individual cognitive performance and thereby the efficiency of the work environment. Method: In a fully counterbalanced randomized control trial, we assessed the cognitive performance of 45 undergraduate students for up to a 1-hr period in each condition. Results: The results indicate that there is no significant change in the measures used to assess cognitive performance associated with working while seated, while standing, or while walking at low intensity. Conclusion: These results indicate that cognitive performance is not degraded with short-term use of alternate workstations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0018720815605446

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 63

Authors
Bantoft, C., Summers, M. J., Tranent, P. J., Palmer, M. A., Cooley, P. D., & Pedersen, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Tasmania (AU)
  • University of the Sunshine Coast (AU)
  • University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2015-09-24
Volume
58
Issue
1
Pages
140-149
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W2191254511
Cited by
63
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • FedUni ResearchOnline (Federation University Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eli Lilly and Company
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Facilities and Workplace Management
Keywords
sitting at work, standing at work, cognitive performance, working memory, short-term memory, attention, processing speed, sit-stand desks, office ergonomics, incidental physical activity, prolonged sitting
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Posture, Psychological Tests, Task Performance and Analysis, Walking, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review