We have located links that may give you full text access.
The Acute Physical and Cognitive Effects of a Classical Workplace Physical Activity Program Versus a Motor-Cognitive Coordination Workplace Program: A Randomized Crossover Trial.
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2018 October
OBJECTIVE: To compare the exercise loads and cognitive effects of a classical workplace program from that for a motor-cognitive coordination workplace intervention.
METHODS: Twenty-eight (28) employed adults (women 19, men 9) participated in a motor-cognitive coordination and a classical workplace health promotion exercise intervention. Effects on attention and cognition (trail making test [TMT]) as well as exercise load (heart rate and rates of perceived exhaustion [RPE]) were assessed.
RESULTS: The motor-cognitive intervention does not improve cognitive abilities (TMT-A: -4.6 ± 2.2 seconds; TMT-B: -8.5 ± 3.2 seconds) to a greater extent than the classical workplace health enhancement training (TMT-A: -4.6 ± 3.1 seconds; TMT-B: -7.4 ± 3.9 seconds) (P < 0.05). The exercise load was not different between the two interventions (maximal heart rate: 107 ± 8 vs 111 ± 6 bpm; RPE: 11.8 ± 1.7 vs 11.9 ± 1.2 points).
CONCLUSIONS: The motor-cognitive workplace intervention may be adopted as an additional/alternate enhancement in terms of varied activity, and not as a compensation intervention for workplace health. More research is needed to proof this assumption.
METHODS: Twenty-eight (28) employed adults (women 19, men 9) participated in a motor-cognitive coordination and a classical workplace health promotion exercise intervention. Effects on attention and cognition (trail making test [TMT]) as well as exercise load (heart rate and rates of perceived exhaustion [RPE]) were assessed.
RESULTS: The motor-cognitive intervention does not improve cognitive abilities (TMT-A: -4.6 ± 2.2 seconds; TMT-B: -8.5 ± 3.2 seconds) to a greater extent than the classical workplace health enhancement training (TMT-A: -4.6 ± 3.1 seconds; TMT-B: -7.4 ± 3.9 seconds) (P < 0.05). The exercise load was not different between the two interventions (maximal heart rate: 107 ± 8 vs 111 ± 6 bpm; RPE: 11.8 ± 1.7 vs 11.9 ± 1.2 points).
CONCLUSIONS: The motor-cognitive workplace intervention may be adopted as an additional/alternate enhancement in terms of varied activity, and not as a compensation intervention for workplace health. More research is needed to proof this assumption.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app