Determining Metabolic Effects and Perceived Effort of Varying Dual-Task Walking Conditions

Faculty Mentor

Katie Taylor, Kristyne Wiegand

Presentation Type

Poster

Start Date

4-14-2026 2:00 PM

End Date

4-14-2026 4:00 PM

Location

PUB NCR

Primary Discipline of Presentation

Exercise Science

Abstract

Sedentary desk-based work is increasingly common and is linked to varying health issues. Incorporating movement into desk-based work (i.e., under-desk walking pads) has been suggested to mitigate these health risks. However, less is known about the effects of under-desk walking pads during cognitive tasks on physical and perceived effort. PURPOSE: To examine differences in metabolic cost and perceived effort during computer-based, cognitive tasks using an under-desk walking pad. METHODS: To date, three participants (19.7 ± 0.6 y) have completed the study. A within-groups, randomized, crossover design was used with 4 conditions (control = CON; typing = TYP; memory recall = MEM; math problem-solving = MATH). Each task was 5 minutes and participants walked at a self-selected pace on an under-desk walking pad with a height-adjustable desk. Oxygen consumption (VO2), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), and heart rate (HR) were measured continuously, and energy expenditure was calculated using the Weir equation. Physical and cognitive exertion scores were recorded after each condition. Data were analyzed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA (a = .05). RESULTS: Preliminary analyses indicate no differences across conditions for VO2 (CON = 11.1 ± 0.91; TYP = 11.21 ± 1.33; MEM = 11.01 ± 1.18; MATH = 11.15 ± 1.16; p = .80), RER (CON = 0.80 ± 0.04; TYP = 0.84 ± 0.01; MEM = 0.88 ± 0.05; MATH = 0.86 ± 0.03; p = .06), HR (CON = 115 ± 16; TYP = 116 ± 17; MEM = 122 ± 15; MATH = 127 ± 12; p = .15), or energy expenditure CON = 16.63 ± 3.06; TYP = 16.95 ± 3.60; MEM = 16.73 ± 3.09; MATH = 16.93 ± 3.55; (p = .82). Further, there were no differences in physical (CON = 7 ± 1; TYP = 12 ± 3; MEM = 10 ± 1; MATH = 12 ± 3; p = .13) or cognitive perceived exertion (CON = 9 ± 4; TYP = 13 ± 4; MEM = 13 ± 2; MATH = 13 ± 5; p = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a small sample size, HR is non-significantly higher during memory recall and math problem-solving compared to typing and control. However, perceived physical exertion is non-significantly higher in the typing task. Continued research with an increased sample size will be important to determine the effects of dual tasks on metabolic cost and perceived effort.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 14th, 2:00 PM Apr 14th, 4:00 PM

Determining Metabolic Effects and Perceived Effort of Varying Dual-Task Walking Conditions

PUB NCR

Sedentary desk-based work is increasingly common and is linked to varying health issues. Incorporating movement into desk-based work (i.e., under-desk walking pads) has been suggested to mitigate these health risks. However, less is known about the effects of under-desk walking pads during cognitive tasks on physical and perceived effort. PURPOSE: To examine differences in metabolic cost and perceived effort during computer-based, cognitive tasks using an under-desk walking pad. METHODS: To date, three participants (19.7 ± 0.6 y) have completed the study. A within-groups, randomized, crossover design was used with 4 conditions (control = CON; typing = TYP; memory recall = MEM; math problem-solving = MATH). Each task was 5 minutes and participants walked at a self-selected pace on an under-desk walking pad with a height-adjustable desk. Oxygen consumption (VO2), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), and heart rate (HR) were measured continuously, and energy expenditure was calculated using the Weir equation. Physical and cognitive exertion scores were recorded after each condition. Data were analyzed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA (a = .05). RESULTS: Preliminary analyses indicate no differences across conditions for VO2 (CON = 11.1 ± 0.91; TYP = 11.21 ± 1.33; MEM = 11.01 ± 1.18; MATH = 11.15 ± 1.16; p = .80), RER (CON = 0.80 ± 0.04; TYP = 0.84 ± 0.01; MEM = 0.88 ± 0.05; MATH = 0.86 ± 0.03; p = .06), HR (CON = 115 ± 16; TYP = 116 ± 17; MEM = 122 ± 15; MATH = 127 ± 12; p = .15), or energy expenditure CON = 16.63 ± 3.06; TYP = 16.95 ± 3.60; MEM = 16.73 ± 3.09; MATH = 16.93 ± 3.55; (p = .82). Further, there were no differences in physical (CON = 7 ± 1; TYP = 12 ± 3; MEM = 10 ± 1; MATH = 12 ± 3; p = .13) or cognitive perceived exertion (CON = 9 ± 4; TYP = 13 ± 4; MEM = 13 ± 2; MATH = 13 ± 5; p = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a small sample size, HR is non-significantly higher during memory recall and math problem-solving compared to typing and control. However, perceived physical exertion is non-significantly higher in the typing task. Continued research with an increased sample size will be important to determine the effects of dual tasks on metabolic cost and perceived effort.