Volume 18, Issue 4 (Winter 2018)
jrehab 2018, 18(4): 268-277 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mohammadi S, Mokhtarinia H R, Jafarpisheh A S, Kasaeian A, Osqueizadeh R. Investigating the Effects of Different Working Postures on Cognitive Performance. jrehab 2018; 18 (4) :268-277
URL: http://rehabilitationj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-2013-en.html
URL: http://rehabilitationj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-2013-en.html
Sharareh Mohammadi1 
, Hamid Reza Mokhtarinia * 2, Amir Salar Jafarpisheh1 , Amir Kasaeian3 , Reza Osqueizadeh1
, Hamid Reza Mokhtarinia * 2, Amir Salar Jafarpisheh1 , Amir Kasaeian3 , Reza Osqueizadeh1
1- Department of Ergonomics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Ergonomics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,hrmokhtarinia@yahoo.com
3- Hematology-Oncology and Stem Cell Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Ergonomics, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,
3- Hematology-Oncology and Stem Cell Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (8009 Views)
Objective Individuals performance at the workplace is affected by different adopted postures. Sitting postures are mostly used during office work. Improper sitting postures may cause muscle fatigue and discomfort in the spine and also result in mental workload. Poor posture may result in human errors and delay in information processing. Previous studies have demonstrated the relationship between static sitting postures and cognitive factors such as reaction time to an auditory stimulus. Also, some recent studies have demonstrated the effect of static postures on cognitive performance. To our knowledge, none of the studies had considered the sitting and standing postures effects on cognitive performance simultaneously. The aim of this study was to evaluate cognitive performance during three different static working postures: standard sitting, standing, and self-selected sitting postures.
Materials & Methods This semi-experimental design study was conducted on the twenty-nine healthy students (aged 20-30 years). The non-probability sampling method was selected. All participants provided their written informed consent. Participants with no musculoskeletal disorders, heart disease, spine surgery, and history of depression and stress were selected. Their depression status and level of stress were measured using Beck questionnaire. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences. Subjects performed complex Stroop test and typing activity in an office-like laboratory setting at the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences. Stroop test lasted about 9-12 minutes, and a typing task was also designed for approximately 5 minutes for all subjects. Three random postures were selected based on common postures used in the office. The effects of the postures (standard standing, standard sitting, and self-selected sitting posture) on dependent variables such as total test duration and reaction time to congruent and incongruent stimulus, number of typing words and number of typing error were assessed with Repeated Measures ANOVA. To examine the differences between groups, the paired t-test was used.
Results The results demonstrated that reaction time measure and number of typing error (accuracy) were affected by postures (P=0.001). Post hoc analysis demonstrated that reaction time was significantly different between self-selected sitting posture and standard sitting posture (P=0.001), self-selected sitting posture and standard standing posture (P=0.043), standard sitting posture and standard standing posture (P=0.001). With considering the average amount of reaction time to congruent and incongruent cases, it was observed that there is less reaction time in the standardized sitting posture (M=628.67 ms) compared to the self-selected sitting posture (M=689.41 ms) and standard standing posture (M= 675.16 ms). Also, among the three postures studied a significant difference was observed in the number of typing error words (P=0.001). The number of typing error (accuracy) was lower in this posture compared to the two other postures (M=1.58).
Conclusion This study demonstrates that cognitive performance is affected by working postures. This study demonstrates that standard sitting posture is the best posture. Therefore, it is recommended that sitting posture can help in increasing cognitive performance in the workplace.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Physical Therapy
Received: 13/08/2017 | Accepted: 5/11/2017 | Published: 22/12/2017
Received: 13/08/2017 | Accepted: 5/11/2017 | Published: 22/12/2017
References
1. Yektaee T, Tabatabaee Ghomshe F, Piri L. [The effect of ergonomic principles education on musculoskeletal disorders among computer users (Persian)]. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2013; 13(4):108-16.
2. Endo K, Suzuki H, Nishimura H, Tanaka H, Shishido T, Yamamoto K. Sagittal lumbar and pelvic alignment in the standing and sitting positions. Journal of Orthopaedic Science. 2012; 17(6):682–6. doi: 10.1007/s00776-012-0281-1 [DOI:10.1007/s00776-012-0281-1]
3. Videman T, Nurminen M, Troup JDG. Lumbar spinal pathology in cadaveric material in relation to history of back pain, occupation, and physical loading. Spine. 1990; 15(8):728–40. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199008000-00002 [DOI:10.1097/00007632-199008000-00002]
4. Malepe MM, Goon DT, Anyanwu FC. The relationship between postural deviations and body mass index among university students. Biomedical Research. 2015; 26(3):437-42.
5. Castanharo R, Duarte M, McGill S. Corrective sitting strategies: An examination of muscle activity and spine loading. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2014; 24(1):114–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.11.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.11.001]
6. Silva AG, Punt TD, Sharples P, Vilas Boas JP, Johnson MI. Head posture and neck pain of chronic nontraumatic origin: A comparison between patients and pain free persons. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2009; 90(4):669–74. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.10.018 [DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.10.018]
7. Claeys K, Brumagne S, Deklerck J, Vanderhaeghen J, Dankaerts W. Sagittal evaluation of usual standing and sitting spinal posture. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. 2016; 20(2):326–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.10.002 [DOI:10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.10.002]
8. Marshall PWM, Patel H, Callaghan JP. Gluteus medius strength, endurance, and coactivation in the development of low back pain during prolonged standing. Human Movement Science. 2011; 30(1):63–73. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2010.08.017 [DOI:10.1016/j.humov.2010.08.017]
9. Mo'tamed Zadeh M, Shafiei Motlagh M, Darvishi E. [Ergonomics intervention in unit blast furnace of a typical steel company (Persian)]. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2013; 14(3):80-7.
10. Murata J, Murata S, Horie J, Ohtao H, Miyazaki J. Relationship between orthostatic blood pressure changes and postural sway when standing up from a chair in older adult females. International Journal of Gerontology. 2012; 6(3):182–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijge.2012.01.011 [DOI:10.1016/j.ijge.2012.01.011]
11. Antle DM, Côté JN. Relationships between lower limb and trunk discomfort and vascular, muscular and kinetic outcomes during stationary standing work. Gait & Posture. 2013; 37(4):615–9. Doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.10.004 [DOI:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.10.004]
12. Novak D, Mihelj M, Munih M. Psychophysiological responses to different levels of cognitive and physical workload in haptic interaction. Robotica. 2010; 29(3):367–74. doi: 10.1017/s0263574710000184 [DOI:10.1017/S0263574710000184]
13. Sharif Nia SH, Hagh Doust AA, Haji Hosseini F, Hojjati H, Javan Amoli M. [Effect of occupational and psychological factors in back pain nurses in Amol City (Persian)]. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2012; 12(4):93-101.
14. DiDomenico A, Nussbaum MA. Effects of different physical workload parameters on mental workload and performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2011; 41(3):255–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2011.01.008 [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2011.01.008]
15. Claus AP, Hides JA, Moseley GL, Hodges PW. Different ways to balance the spine. Spine. 2009; 34(6):208–14. doi: 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181908ead [DOI:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181908ead]
16. Lajoie Y, Teasdale N, Bard C, Fleury M. Attentional demands for static and dynamic equilibrium. Experimental Brain Research. 1993; 97(1). doi: 10.1007/bf00228824 [DOI:10.1007/BF00228824]
17. Ando S, Kokubu M, Yamada Y, Kimura M. Does cerebral oxygenation affect cognitive function during exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 2011; 111(9):1973–82. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-1827-1 [DOI:10.1007/s00421-011-1827-1]
18. Fitzsimmons PT, Maher JP, Doerksen SE, Elavsky S, Rebar AL, Conroy DE. A daily process analysis of physical activity, sedentary behavior, and perceived cognitive abilities. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2014; 15(5):498–504. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.04.008 [DOI:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.04.008]
19. Neupert SD, Almeida DM, Mroczek DK, Spiro A. Daily stressors and memory failures in a naturalistic setting: Findings from the va normative aging study. Psychology and Aging. 2006; 21(2):424–9. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.424 [DOI:10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.424]
20. Goodenough DR, Oltman PK, Sigman E, Cox PW. The rod-and frame illusion in erect and supine observers. Perception & Psychophysics. 1981; 29(4):365–70. doi: 10.3758/bf03207346 [DOI:10.3758/BF03207346]
21. Lipnicki DM, Byrne DG. Thinking on your back: Solving anagrams faster when supine than when standing. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005; 24(3):719–22. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.03.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.03.003]
22. Bantoft C, Summers MJ, Tranent PJ, Palmer MA, Cooley PD, Pedersen SJ. Effect of standing or walking at a workstation on cognitive function. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2015; 58(1):140–9. doi: 10.1177/0018720815605446 [DOI:10.1177/0018720815605446]
23. Colcombe SJ, Erickson KI, Scalf PE, Kim JS, Prakash R, McAuley E, et al. Aerobic exercise training increases brain volume in aging humans. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2006; 61(11):1166–70. doi: 10.1093/gerona/61.11.1166 [DOI:10.1093/gerona/61.11.1166]
24. Barella LA, Etnier JL, Chang YK. The immediate and delayed effects of an acute bout of exercise on cognitive performance of healthy older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity. 2010; 18(1):87–98. doi: 10.1123/japa.18.1.87 [DOI:10.1123/japa.18.1.87]
25. Russell BA, Summers MJ, Tranent PJ, Palmer MA, Cooley PD, Pedersen SJ. A randomised control trial of the cognitive effects of working in a seated as opposed to a standing position in office workers. Ergonomics. 2015; 59(6):737–44. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2015.1094579 [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2015.1094579]
26. Naccarato M, Leviner S, Proehl CJ, Cen C, Barnason FS, Brim C, et al. Clinical practice guideline: Orthostatic vital signs. Illinois: Emergency Nurses Association; 2011.
27. MC S. Assessing the effect of self positioning on cognitive executive function. Journal of Ergonomics. 2012; 2(4). doi: 10.4172/2165-7556.1000110 [DOI:10.4172/2165-7556.1000110]
28. Healy GN, Matthews CE, Dunstan DW, Winkler EAH, Owen N. Sedentary time and cardio-metabolic biomarkers in US adults: NHANES 2003–06. European Heart Journal. 2011; 32(5):590–7. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq451 [DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq451]
29. Gallagher KM, Campbell T, Callaghan JP. The influence of a seated break on prolonged standing induced low back pain development. Ergonomics. 2014; 57(4):555–62. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2014.893027 [DOI:10.1080/00140139.2014.893027]
30. Straker L, Mathiassen SE. Increased physical work loads in modern work: A necessity for better health and performance. Ergonomics. 2009; 52(10):1215–25. doi: 10.1080/00140130903039101 [DOI:10.1080/00140130903039101]
31. Haynes S, Williams K. Impact of seating posture on user comfort and typing performance for people with chronic low back pain. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2008; 38(1):35–46. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2007.08.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.ergon.2007.08.003]
32. Khalkhali M, Parnianpour M, Karimi H, Mobini B, Kazemnejhad A. The validity and reliability of measurement of thoracic kyphosis using flexible ruler in postural hyper-kyphotic patients. Journal of Biomechanics. 2006; 39:S541. doi: 10.1016/s0021-9290(06)85226-7 [DOI:10.1016/S0021-9290(06)85226-7]
33. Pheasant S, Haslegrave CM. Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics and the design of work. Florida: CRC Press; 2016. [PMCID]
34. Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1935; 18(6):643–62. doi: 10.1037/h0054651 [DOI:10.1037/h0054651]
35. Lezak MD. Neuropsychological assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
36. Van Boxtel MPJ, Ten Tusscher MPM, Metsemakers JFM, Willems B, Jolles J. Visual determinants of reduced performance on the stroop color word test in normal aging individuals. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2001; 23(5):620–7. doi: 10.1076/jcen.23.5.620.1245 [DOI:10.1076/jcen.23.5.620.1245]
37. Joseph JS, Chun MM, Nakayama K. Attentional requirements in a "preattentive" feature search task. Nature. 1997; 387(6635):805–7. doi: 10.1038/42940 [DOI:10.1038/42940]
38. Sørensen L, Plessen KJ, Adolfsdottir S, Lundervold AJ. The specificity of the Stroop interference score of errors to ADHD in boys. Child Neuropsychology. 2013; 20(6):677–91. doi: 10.1080/09297049.2013.855716 [DOI:10.1080/09297049.2013.855716]
39. Commissaris DACM, Könemann R, Hiemstra van Mastrigt S, Burford EM, Botter J, Douwes M, et al. Effects of a standing and three dynamic workstations on computer task performance and cognitive function tests. Applied Ergonomics. 2014; 45(6):1570–8. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.003]
40. Larson MJ, LeCheminant JD, Hill K, Carbine K, Masterson T, Christenson E. Cognitive and typing outcomes measured simultaneously with slow treadmill walking or sitting: Implications for treadmill desks. PLOS ONE. 2015; 10(4):e0121309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121309 [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0121309]
41. Marsh AP, Geel SE. The effect of age on the attentional demands of postural control. Gait & Posture. 2000; 12(2):105–13. doi: 10.1016/s0966-6362(00)00074-6 [DOI:10.1016/S0966-6362(00)00074-6]
42. Anderson Hanley C, Arciero PJ, Westen SC, Nimon J, Zimmerman E. Neuropsychological benefits of stationary bike exercise and a cybercycle exergame for older adults with diabetes: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology. 2012; 6(4):849–57. doi: 10.1177/193229681200600416 [DOI:10.1177/193229681200600416]
43. Grunseit AC, Chau JYY, Van der Ploeg HP, Bauman A. Thinking on your feet: A qualitative evaluation of sit stand desks in an Australian workplace. BMC Public Health. 2013; 13(1). doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-365 [DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-13-365]
44. Isip MI. Effect of a standing body position during college students' exam. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems. 2014; 13(2):185-92. [DOI:10.7232/iems.2014.13.2.185]
45. Caldwell JA, Prazinko B, Caldwell JL. Body posture affects electroencephalographic activity and psychomotor vigilance task performance in sleep deprived subjects. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2003; 114(1):23–31. doi: 10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00283-3 [DOI:10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00283-3]
46. Cohen JD, Barch DM, Carter C, Servan Schreiber D. Context-processing deficits in schizophrenia: Converging evidence from three theoretically motivated cognitive tasks. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1999; 108(1):120–33. doi: 10.1037/0021-843x.108.1.120 [DOI:10.1037/0021-843X.108.1.120]
47. Egeland J, Langfjæran T. Differentiating malingering from genuine cognitive dysfunction using the trail making test ratio and stroop interference scores. Applied Neuropsychology. 2007; 14(2):113–9. doi: 10.1080/09084280701319953 [DOI:10.1080/09084280701319953]
48. Andersen KJ. Are you sitting down? Towards cognitive performance informed design. ECS Tech Report. 2012; 340535:1-3.
49. Schwartz B. Cognitive and biomechanical effects of postural changes in office environments. Karlsruhe: Upper Austria University of Applied Sciences; 2015.
50. Ebara T, Kubo T, Inoue T, Murasaki GI, Takeyama H, Sato T, et al. Effects of adjustable sit-stand VDT workstations on workers' musculoskeletal discomfort, alertness and performance. Industrial health. 2008; 46(5):497-505. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.46.497 [DOI:10.2486/indhealth.46.497]
51. Ohlinger CM, Horn TS, Berg WP, Cox RH. The effect of active workstation use on measures of cognition, attention, and motor skill. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2011; 8(1):119-25. doi: 10.1123/jpah.8.1.119 [DOI:10.1123/jpah.8.1.119]
52. Thompson WG, Levine JA. Productivity of transcriptionists using a treadmill desk. Work. 2011; 40(4):473-7. doi: 10.3233/WOR-2011-1258
53. Funk RE, Taylor ML, Creekmur CC, Ohlinger CM, Cox RH, Berg WP. Effect of walking speed on typing performance using an active workstation. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2012; 115(1):309–18. doi: 10.2466/06.23.26.pms.115.4.309-318 [DOI:10.2466/06.23.26.PMS.115.4.309-318]
54. Straker L, Levine J, Campbell A. The effects of walking and cycling computer workstations on keyboard and mouse performance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2009; 51(6):831–44. doi: 10.1177/0018720810362079 [DOI:10.1177/0018720810362079]
55. Eidels A, Townsend JT, Algom D. Comparing perception of Stroop stimuli in focused versus divided attention paradigms: Evidence for dramatic processing differences. Cognition. 2010; 114(2):129–50. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.008 [DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.008]
56. Husemann B, Von Mach CY, Borsotto D, Zepf KI, Scharnbacher J. Comparisons of musculoskeletal complaints and data entry between a sitting and a sit stand workstation paradigm. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2009; 51(3):310–20. doi: 10.1177/0018720809338173 [DOI:10.1177/0018720809338173]
57. John D, Bassett D, Thompson D, Fairbrother J, Baldwin D. Effect of using a treadmill workstation on performance of simulated office work tasks. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2009; 6(5):617–24. doi: 10.1123/jpah.6.5.617 [DOI:10.1123/jpah.6.5.617]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Copyright © The Author(s);
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-By-NC), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
Contact Information
