No abstract

No 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.

Psychological stress is increasingly associated with alterations in performance and affect. Yet, the relationship between experimentally induced psychological stress and neural indices of performance monitoring and error processing, as well as response inhibition, are unclear. Using scalp-recorded event-related potentials (ERPs), we tested the relationship between experimental stress, using the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST), and the error-related negativity (ERN), error positivity (Pe), and N2 ERP components. A final sample of 71 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to go through the TSST (n = 36; 18 female) or a brief mindfulness relaxation exercise (n = 35; 16 female) immediately followed by a go/no-go task while electroencephalogram (EEG) data were collected. Salivary cortisol, heart rate, and blood pressure confirmed increased physiological stress in the TSST group relative to control. Reaction times, accuracy, and post-error slowing did not differ by stress group. Two-group (TSST, control) by 2-trial type (correct, incorrect for ERN/Pe; go correct, no-go correct for N2) repeated measures ANOVAs for the ERN, Pe, and N2 showed the expected main effects of trial type; neither the ERN nor the N2 ERP components showed interactions with the stress manipulation. In contrast, the Pe component showed a significant Group by Trial interaction, with reduced Pe amplitude following the stress condition relative to control. Pe amplitude did not, however, correlate with cortisol reactivity. Findings suggest a reduction in Pe amplitude following experimental stress that may be associated with reduced error awareness or attention to errors following the TSST. Given the variability in the extant literature on the relationship between experimentally induced stress and neurophysiological reflections of performance monitoring, we provide another point of data and conclude that better understanding of moderating variables is needed followed by high-powered replication studies to get at the nuance that is not yet understood in the relationship between induced stress and performance monitoring/response inhibition processes.

No abstract