Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31461444›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

The effect of using a cycling workstation on mouse dexterity.

Anna Anderson, Oliver Thornton, Rachel Coats, Antonio Capozio, Sarah Astill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anna AndersonSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4048-6880
Oliver ThorntonSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, United Kingdom.
Rachel CoatsSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, United Kingdom.
Antonio CapozioSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, United Kingdom.
Sarah AstillSchool of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, England, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9443-6934

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 202423/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of using a cycling workstation on mouse dexterity, including if and how this changed with practice. Thirty-four healthy adults were allocated to a sitting group (n = 17) or cycling group (n = 17). All participants completed standardised computer tasks on 6 occasions: baseline and final-all participants were seated; practice 1 to 4-sitting group participants were seated, cycling group participants pedalled on an under desk cycle. Three computer tasks were employed: (1) Tracking (continuous task)-participants used the mouse pointer to track a dot in a figure of 8 pattern at 3 different speeds without a guide then with a guide (2) Aiming (discrete task)-participants moved the mouse pointer to a dot which repeatedly disappeared then reappeared again in different locations, creating the outline of a pentagram (3) Steering (continuous task)-participants steered the mouse pointer around two different pathways. Accuracy was measured during the Tracking and Steering tasks as the root mean square error and penalised path accuracy respectively. Speed was measured during the Aiming task as the movement time. Data was analysed using frequentist and Bayes Factor analyses. During the continuous tasks (Tracking and Steering), accuracy was impaired among participants using the cycling workstation, both compared to their accuracy when seated and to the accuracy of participants in the sitting group. In contrast, no deficits in speed were noted among participants using the cycling work station during the discrete task (Aiming). No learning effects were observed among either group for any tasks. These findings suggest using a cycling workstation may impair the accuracy but not speed of mouse use, regardless of task practice. Overall this supports the implementation of cycling workstations in typical office settings, but suggests cycling workstations may impair productivity among workers performing high precision mouse tasks.

Indexed as

EfficiencyExerciseWorkplaceAdultComputersEquipment DesignErgonomicsFemaleHumansMalePostureSedentary BehaviorYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31461444
PMCPMC6713392

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.