↓ Skip to main content

A cycling workstation to facilitate physical activity in office settings

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Ergonomics, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A cycling workstation to facilitate physical activity in office settings
Published in
Applied Ergonomics, March 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.03.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven J. Elmer, James C. Martin

Abstract

Facilitating physical activity during the workday may help desk-bound workers reduce risks associated with sedentary behavior. We 1) evaluated the efficacy of a cycling workstation to increase energy expenditure while performing a typing task and 2) fabricated a power measurement system to determine the accuracy and reliability of an exercise cycle. Ten individuals performed 10 min trials of sitting while typing (SIT type) and pedaling while typing (PED type). Expired gases were recorded and typing performance was assessed. Metabolic cost during PED type was ∼ 2.5 × greater compared to SIT type (255 ± 14 vs. 100 ± 11 kcal h(-1), P < 0.01). Typing time and number of typing errors did not differ between PED type and SIT type (7.7 ± 1.5 vs. 7.6 ± 1.6 min, P = 0.51, 3.3 ± 4.6 vs. 3.8 ± 2.7 errors, P = 0.80). The exercise cycle overestimated power by 14-138% compared to actual power but actual power was reliable (r = 0.998, P < 0.01). A cycling workstation can facilitate physical activity without compromising typing performance. The exercise cycle's inaccuracy could be misleading to users.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 116 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 20 16%
Sports and Recreations 15 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 11%
Psychology 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Other 29 24%
Unknown 27 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2021.
All research outputs
#1,374,611
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Applied Ergonomics
#88
of 1,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,442
of 238,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Ergonomics
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.