Feasibility and behavioral effects of prolonged static and dynamic standing as compared to sitting in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Does Standing Up Enhance Performance on the Stroop Task in Healthy Young Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Understanding the changes in cognitive processing that accompany changes in posture can expand our understanding of embodied cognition and open new avenues for applications in (neuro)ergonomics. Recent studies have challenged the question of whether standing up alters cognitive performance. An electronic database search for randomized controlled trials was performed using Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Ultimate, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science following PRISMA guidelines, PICOS framework, and standard quality assessment criteria (SQAC). We pooled data from a total of 603 healthy young adults for incongruent and 578 for congruent stimuli and Stroop effect (mean age = 24 years). Using random-effects results, no difference was found between sitting and standing for the Stroop effect (Hedges' g = 0.13, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.29, p = 0.134), even when comparing congruent (Hedges' g = 0.10; 95% CI: -0.132 to 0.339; Z = 0.86; p = 0.389) and incongruent (Hedges' g = 0.18; 95% CI: -0.072 to 0.422; Z = 1.39; p = 0.164) stimuli separately. Importantly, these results imply that changing from a seated to a standing posture in healthy young adults is unlikely to have detrimental effects on selective attention and cognitive control. To gain a full understanding of this phenomenon, further research should examine this effect in a population of healthy older adults, as well as in a population with pathology.

Total Sedentary Time and Cognitive Function in Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

An estimated 47 million people have dementia globally, and around 10 million new cases are diagnosed each year. Many lifestyle factors have been linked to cognitive impairment; one emerging modifiable lifestyle factor is sedentary time.

Objective

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature examining the association between total sedentary time with cognitive function in middle-aged and older adults under the moderating conditions of (a) type of sedentary time measurement; (b) the cognitive domain being assessed; (c) looking at sedentary time using categorical variables (i.e., high versus low sedentary time); and (d) the pattern of sedentary time accumulation (e.g., longer versus shorter bouts). We also aimed to examine the prevalence of sedentary time in healthy versus cognitively impaired populations and to explore how experimental studies reducing or breaking up sedentary time affect cognitive function. Lastly, we aimed to conduct a quantitative pooled analysis of all individual studies through meta-analysis procedures to derive conclusions about these relationships.

Methods

Eight electronic databases (EMBASE; Web of Science; PsycINFO; CINAHL; SciELO; SPORTDiscus; PubMed; and Scopus) were searched from inception to February 2021. Our search included terms related to the exposure (i.e., sedentary time), the population (i.e., middle-aged and older adults), and the outcome of interest (i.e., cognitive function). PICOS framework used middle-aged and older adults where there was an intervention or exposure of any sedentary time compared to any or no comparison, where cognitive function and/or cognitive impairment was measured, and all types of quantitative, empirical, observational data published in any year were included that were published in English. Risk of bias was assessed using QualSyst.

Results

Fifty-three studies including 83,137 participants met the inclusion criteria of which 23 studies had appropriate data for inclusion in the main meta-analysis. The overall meta-analysis suggested that total sedentary time has no association with cognitive function (r = −0.012 [95% CI − 0.035, 0.011], p = 0.296) with marked heterogeneity (I² = 89%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a significant negative association for studies using a device to capture sedentary time r = −0.035 [95% CI − 0.063, − 0.008], p = 0.012). Specifically, the domains of global cognitive function (r = −0.061 [95% CI − 0.100, − 0.022], p = 0.002) and processing speed (r = −0.067, [95% CI − 0.103, − 0.030], p < 0.001). A significant positive association was found for studies using self-report (r = 0.037 [95% CI − 0.019, 0.054], p < 0.001). Specifically, the domain of processing speed showed a significant positive association (r = 0.057 [95% CI 0.045, 0.069], p < 0.001). For prevalence, populations diagnosed with cognitive impairment spent significantly more time sedentary compared to populations with no known cognitive impairments (standard difference in mean = −0.219 [95% CI − 0.310, − 0.128], p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The association of total sedentary time with cognitive function is weak and varies based on measurement of sedentary time and domain being assessed. Future research is needed to better categorize domains of sedentary behaviour with both a validated self-report and device-based measure in order to improve the strength of this relationship. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018082384.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-022-00507-x.