Searching for just a few words should be enough to get started. If you need to make more complex queries, use the tips below to guide you.
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Rajeshwari, R.a | Rao, Chythra Rb | D’Silva, Ruth Marya | Chandrasekaran, Baskarana; *
Affiliations: [a] Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences, Manipal College of Health Professions, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India | [b] Department of Community Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India
Correspondence: [*] Address for correspondence: Baskaran Chandrasekaran, PT, Assistant Professor. E-mail: [email protected]; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1439-9158.
Abstract: BACKGROUND:Anecdotal evidence links occupational sedentary behaviour, low energy expenditure (EE) and cognitive dysfunction. Nevertheless, EE across different work postures including active workstations remains unclear and its influence on cognitive processing speed is yet to be established. OBJECTIVE:We aimed to investigate differences in EE across various work postures and its influence on cognitive processing speed. METHODS:Sixteen desk-based employees performed simulated work tasks (typing, reading and cognitive tasks) in three different work positions (sitting, standing, and walking) in three different days. EE was measured for three days consecutively for 30-minutes in three simulated working postures using indirect calorimetry. Cognitive processing speed was assessed through computer-based choice reaction times during each work posture. The outcome variables of interest (EE, reaction times and accuracy) were compared between three work postures using repeated measures ANOVA and Pearson correlation. RESULTS:EE in walking posture was higher (5.57±0.45 Kcal) than sitting (1.07±0.12 Kcal) and standing (1.88±0.42 Kcal). Total EE was significantly higher in walking than standing (35.17±6.86 Kcal) and sitting postures (41.37±8.46 Kcal). We did not find any significant differences in cognitive processing speed between different work postures except within standing work condition (60.22±13.97 ms). Accuracy was found to be reduced in walking compared to sitting (0.76±0.83%) and standing (0.43±0.09%) but not reached significance. CONCLUSION:Although significant differences in EE were observed between work postures, walking or standing at work did not affect the cognitive processing speed.
Keywords: Energy expenditure, cognition, calorimeter, work posture, standing
DOI: 10.3233/WOR-205315
Journal: Work, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 549-563, 2023
IOS Press, Inc.
6751 Tepper Drive
Clifton, VA 20124
USA
Tel: +1 703 830 6300
Fax: +1 703 830 2300
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
IOS Press
Nieuwe Hemweg 6B
1013 BG Amsterdam
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 688 3355
Fax: +31 20 687 0091
[email protected]
For editorial issues, permissions, book requests, submissions and proceedings, contact the Amsterdam office [email protected]
Inspirees International (China Office)
Ciyunsi Beili 207(CapitaLand), Bld 1, 7-901
100025, Beijing
China
Free service line: 400 661 8717
Fax: +86 10 8446 7947
[email protected]
For editorial issues, like the status of your submitted paper or proposals, write to [email protected]
如果您在出版方面需要帮助或有任何建, 件至: [email protected]