Neurovascular Coupling is Unchanged during Sitting, Standing or Walking: Implications for Active Work Stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurovascular coupling (NVC) is a phenomenon that matches regional cerebral blood flow to local neuronal metabolic activity. Improvements in NVC may underlie the qualitative reports of improved cognitive performance using standing and active workstations. However, little has been investigated pertaining to body position and the potential effects of sitting, standing or walking on NVC. We hypothesized that sitting, standing and low intensity treadmill walking (2 mph) would increase NVC magnitude in a dose‐dependent fashion. We recruited 20 young, healthy participants (n=20, 11 females), and instrumented them with an electrocardiogram (beat‐by‐beat heart rate; HR; bpm), finger photoplethysmography (mean arterial pressure; MAP; mmHg) and transcranial Doppler ultrasound to quantify posterior cerebral artery velocity (PCAv; cm/s) during sitting, standing and walking trials. Each position included a protocol consisting of a 3‐min baseline (BL) and three x 30‐sec standardized visual stimulus (VS) periods using a 6 Hz strobe light held 15cm away from the eyes. Responses were quantified through (a) visually identified peak(s) PCAv during VS, (b) time to peak peak(s) and (c) mean PCAv response(s) during VS, with all three measures averaged for a representative response for each individual. NVC magnitude was then quantified as a change (delta) in peak and mean responses from BL. At baseline, HR was incrementally higher in sitting, standing and walking (P<0.001), but MAP was unchanged between positions (P=0.12). There were significant increases in the peak and mean responses from BL in all positions during VS (P<0.001), confirming an NVC response. However, there were no differences in delta peak (P=0.47), time‐to‐peak (P=0.29) nor delta mean (P=0.76) NVC responses during VS across all positions. These results suggest that NVC magnitude is unaffected by body position or low intensity physical activity. We conclude that reports of increased cognitive performance while using standing or active work stations in the workplace are not related to NVC, and are likely related to nervous system activation and/or changes in systemic metabolic rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".