ArticlePloS one2019
The effect of using a cycling workstation on mouse dexterity.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Active Workstations on Neurocognitive Performance and Typing Skills: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Trial
- A Cluster-Randomised Crossover Pilot Feasibility Study of a Multicomponent Intervention to Reduce Occupational Sedentary Behaviour in Professional Male Employees.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- A theory-based multicomponent intervention to reduce occupational sedentary behaviour in professional male workers: protocol for a cluster randomised crossover pilot feasibility study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.