Table 2.
Characteristics of selected studies.
| Articles and study design | Stobe score | Mean age (SD) [Range] | Population | Intervention/Cognitive functions tested | Type of intervention | Sedentariness: type of measures/Definition | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHORT-TERM STUDIES | |||||||
| Alderman et al. (67) Randomized cross-over | 23 | 21.06 (1.6) (17–24) | Undergraduate students. N = 66 | 2 conditions: Treadmill-desk vs. Seated condition. Cognitive inhibition/Working memory | Short-term intervention: 2 conditions separated by 48 h. | NA. | No differences. |
| Bergouignan et al. (64) Randomized cross-over design | 25 | 30 (5.6) (24–49) | Sedentary adults. N = 30 | 3 conditions: 6 h of uninterrupted sitting (SIT) vs. SIT plus 30 min of moderate-intensity treadmill walking vs. SIT plus six hourly 5-min microbouts of moderate-intensity treadmill walking. Cognitive flexibility/Cognitive inhibition | Short-term intervention: 1 condition per day (about 10 h). | Physical activity and sedentariness measured by a questionnaire [International Physical Activity Questionnaire, (77)] and by an accelerometer worn for 1 week. Sedentary if participants self-report sitting more than 9 h/day. | No differences. |
| Commissaris et al. (74) Randomized repeated measures design | 24 | 29 (12) [>18] | Adults. N = 15 | 6 conditions: Treadmill desk vs. Elliptical trainer vs. Bicycle ergometer (2 conditions) vs. Standing workstation vs. Standard sitting position. Cognitive inhibition/Working memory/Information processing speed | Short-term intervention: 1 condition per full working day (7/8 h). | Physical activity practiced self-reported. | No differences. |
| Ehmann et al. (73) Randomized cross over | 24 |
Young adults: 20.6 (2.0) (17–27) Middle-aged adults: 45.6 (11.8) (30–64) |
Young adults: N = 32 Middle-aged adults: N = 26 | 2 conditions: Treadmill walking (low intensity) vs. Seated control condition. Cognitive flexibility/Cognitive inhibition/Working memory/Reasoning | Short term intervention: 2 experimental conditions, each separated by at least 48 h. | Physical activity self-reported [physical activity readiness questionnaire, (78)] and measured by an accelerometer wore during test sessions. | No differences. |
| John et al. (68) Randomized cross-over | 22 | 26.4 (4.04) [NC] | Graduate students. N = 20 | 2 conditions: Treadmill desk vs. Sitting. Cognitive inhibition/Reasoning/Information processing speed | Short-term intervention: 2 visits of 60 minutes separated by 2 days; 1 condition/day. | NA. | Poorer performances on reasoning and information processing speed in the treadmill desk condition. |
| Ohlinger et al. (65) Randomized cross-over | 20 | 43.2 (9.3) (22–59) | Employees of Miami University. N = 50 | 3 conditions: Sitting vs. Standing vs. Walking. Cognitive inhibition/Short term memory/Information processing speed | Short-term intervention: A single 75-min visit. | Physical activity and sedentariness measured by questionnaire (hours spent sitting at work each day, and number of days they exercise each week). | No differences other than a decrement on the processing speed task during walking compared to sit and stand. |
| Pilcher and Baker (69) Randomized cross-over | 21 | 19.64 (1.05) [NC] | Undergraduate students. N = 38 | 2 conditions: Cycling vs. Sitting at a traditional desk. Reasoning | Short-term intervention: Two 45-min sessions separated by 24 h at least. | NA. | No differences. |
| Schwartz et al. (66) Randomized cross-over | 25 | 25.4 (3.3) (19–31) | Students. Control group (n = 15) Experimental Group (n = 30) N = 45 | Control group: Sitting for 5 consecutive 30-min trials each. Experimental group, 2 conditions: Alternate sitting and standing postures every 30 min. 5 times vs. sit for 5 trials. Cognitive inhibition/Sustained attention/Information processing speed | Short-term intervention: 2 whole days separated by 7 days; 1 condition per day. | Physical activity and sedentariness measured by a questionnaire [International Physical Activity Questionnaire, (77)]. | No differences. |
| Torbeyns et al. (70) Randomized cross-over | 23 | 35.7 (10.3) [NC] | Adults with a sedentary occupation. N = 23 | 2 conditions: Cycling desk vs. Sitting on a conventional chair. Cognitive inhibition/Episodic memory/Sustained attention/Information processing speed | Short-term intervention: 2 visits separated by 1 week; 1 condition per visit. | Physical activity practiced self-reported [International Physical Activity Questionnaire, (77)]. Sedentariness if the individual is seated for at least 70% of the workday. | No differences. |
| MEDIUM-TERM STUDIES | |||||||
| Edwards and Loprinzi (75) Randomized controlled, parallel group intervention | 27 | 21.74 (2.82) (17–34) | Adults. Control group (n = 10). Experimental group (n = 23). N = 33 | Control group: Normal practice of physical activity. Experimental group: Reduce physical activity as much as possible for a week. Working memory/Reasoning/Sustained attention/Planning | Medium-term intervention: reduction of physical activity during 1 week. | Physical activity practiced and sedentariness self-reported by a questionnaire [International Physical Activity Questionnaire, short form, (77)] and wearing an accelerometer for 1 week prior to the intervention and wearing a pedometer during 7 days. Sedentariness if no practice of structured physical activity and less than 5,000 steps a day. | No differences. |
| Mullane et al. (71) Randomized cross-over full-factorial design | 24 | 30 (15) (17–57) | Overweight adults with a sedentary office-based occupation. N = 9 | 4 conditions: Sit vs. Sit-Stand vs. Sit-Walk vs. Sit-Cycle. Working memory/Reasoning/Psychomotor | Medium-term intervention: Each condition performed across 4 consecutive weeks, 7 days apart. | Physical activity and sedentariness measured by an accelerometer. | Improved working memory, reasoning and psychomotor if short moments of light physical activity (standing, walking, cycling). |
| Russell et al. (72) Randomized cross-over | 24 | 40.08 (11.93) (21–61) | Employees of the university of Tasmania. N = 36 | 2 conditions: Sitting vs. Standing (or the reverse) for 1 h per day for 5 consecutive days. Working memory/Sustained attention/Information processing speed/Cognitive flexibility/Cognitive inhibition/Short-term memory | Medium-term intervention: 1 h/day for 5 consecutive days. | Physical activity and sedentariness measured by a questionnaire [Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire, (79)] and by an accelerometer. | No differences. |
| LONG-TERM STUDY | |||||||
| Fanning et al. (76) Unclear | 25 | 65.4 (4.6) (59–78) | Older people among whom 120 still have a professional activity. N = 247 | 3 conditions: Substituting 30 min of sedentary behavior with 30 min of (a) light activity, (b) moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, or (c) sleep. Cognitive flexibility/Working memory | Long-term intervention: during 6 months. | Sedentariness measured by accelerometer during 7 consecutive days. Sedentariness if number of counts per minute at the accelerometer is < 50. | Better performances. |
NA, Not Available; sedentarity was not defined, and not assessed or reported.