| Title |
The effect of walking while typing on neck/shoulder patterns
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Applied Physiology, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00421-015-3163-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Larissa M. Fedorowich, Kim Emery, Julie N. Côté |
| Abstract |
This project aimed to quantify the effects of modifying computer work posture on neck/shoulder patterns during a prolonged typing task. Twenty healthy participants completed a 90-min typing task while sitting or walking on a treadmill. Electromyography (EMG) was recorded from eight upper body muscles and laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) from two upper body sites. Effects of Time and Posture were assessed for EMG amplitude (RMS), variability (CoV), normalized mutual information (NMI), LDF and upper limb discomfort. Upper limb discomfort was higher during sitting and increased with time, from 0.86 ± 1.3 to 3.7 ± 3.1 out of 10. Interaction effects showed that EMG amplitude decreased over time for the lumbar erector spinae (LES) (from 6.3 ± 2.9 to 5.6 ± 3.2 % MIVC) and wrist extensor (from 12.4 ± 2.7 to 11.3 ± 3.5 % MIVC) during walking, but increased during sitting. Anterior Deltoid EMG amplitude was 64 % lower during walking while External Oblique EMG amplitude (43 %) and Lower Trapezius EMG variability (65 %) were higher during walking. Interaction effects showed higher LES CoV during walking compared to sitting (p = 0.019) in the beginning but not at the end of the task, and higher neck/shoulder NMI (p = 0.050) towards the end of the task during sitting compared to walking. Results suggest that walking while performing computer work may be effective in inducing healthier muscular patterns, possibly explaining the lower level of discomfort compared to sitting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Sweden | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Researcher | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 8% |
| Engineering | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,714,999
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#865
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,224
of 279,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#12
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 279,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.