SynthesisFrontiers in physiology2026
Evaluating the methods used to examine sitting breaks and their influence on mental load, physical strain, and cognitive performance - a scoping review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Long periods of sitting characterize modern working life and are associated with increased health risks. Integrating short activity breaks may counteract these effects. This scoping review examines the effects of brief bouts of physical activities on cognitive performance and neurophysiological parameters. Methods: A comprehensive search in PubMed and EBSCOhost identified experimental and field studies with adult participants examining the effects of interrupting sitting periods with short physical activities on cognitive performance, neurophysiological parameters (EEG), and muscle activity (EMG). Studies focusing solely on standing or posture changes were excluded. Study quality and internal validity were assessed using the revised Cochrane tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials. A narrative synthesis summarised the findings. Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 694 participants aged between 20 and 50 years. Of these, only one study examined the influence on EEG and found that walking breaks increased attention-related brain activity, as indicated by a higher P3 amplitude. However, behavioural performance remained unchanged. Two studies examined muscular parameters using EMG, one of which observed a reduction in fatigue. Cognitive performance was assessed in 16 studies. Only two studies used standardized and realistic work tasks to keep participants engaged during the sitting periods. The results varied widely and only occasionally showed a positive influence of movement breaks on cognitive function. Conclusion: Reasons for the heterogeneity of the results on cognitive performance may lie in different study designs, types of intervention, and outcome measurements. Another factor is the tasks assigned during the sitting phases. Variations in mental load during the different tasks cannot be ruled out, which in turn may influence cognitive performance outcomes after the interventions. The limited number of studies, which often had small sample sizes, and the considerable methodological heterogeneity do not allow for definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, the review provides some evidence that interrupting prolonged sitting with short breaks of physical activity may help maintain cognitive performance and muscle health. These findings underscore the need for more rigorous, ecologically valid research to better understand the health effects of interrupting sedentary activities. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025638431, identifier CRD42025638431.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.