Abstract
Numerous studies have shown that different body postures and positions can differently influence one’s physiology, motivation and emotion processes, and behavioral and cognitive performances. The varying level of autonomic activation in various body positions may explain the differing level of arousal in supine (Lay), seated (Sit), and standing (Stand) body positions. The present study compared for the first time the effect of these three body positions on word-recognition performance (i.e., response accuracy and response time) while simultaneously using electroencephalography (EEG) to watch the brain at work. No significant difference was found among the three body positions for response accuracy. However, the mean response time was significantly faster for the Hit (correct judgment of the repetition of a word-stimulus) response outcome category in the Sit position compared to the Stand position. Moreover, the mean response time was slower for the Miss (incorrect judgment of the repetition of a word-stimulus) category in the Lay position compared to the Sit position. EEG data analysis further revealed interesting trends for the brain potential amplitudes at 180 ms post-stimulus. The amplitude corresponding to the Miss category was significantly different from the Correct rejection category in the Stand position at this timepoint. More importantly though, the differences in brain potential amplitudes between the Miss and the other three categories (Hit, Correct rejection, and False alarm) in the Lay position around this timepoint (180 ms) could be interpreted as a potential neurophysiological correlate underlying the prolonged response time for the Miss category in the Lay position. Possibly, this phenomenon can be linked with the well-known N200 event-related potential (ERP) component.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Price, T. F., Dieckman, L. W., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2012). Embodying approach motivation: Body posture influences startle eyeblink and event-related potential responses to appetitive stimuli. Biological Psychology, 90(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.04.001.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Peterson, C. K. (2009). Supine body position reduces neural response to anger evocation. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1209–1210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02416.x.
Muehlhan, M., Marxen, M., Landsiedel, J., Malberg, H., & Zaunseder, S. (2014). The effect of body posture on cognitive performance: A question of sleep quality. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(171), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00171.
Jutras, M.-A., Labonté-LeMoyne, E., Sénécal, S., Léger, P.-M., Begon, M., & Mathieu, M.-È. (2017). When should I use my active workstation? The impact of physical demand and task difficulty on IT users’ perception and performance. Special Interest Group on Human-Computer Interaction 2017 Proceedings, 14. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/sighci2017/14.
Labonté-LeMoyne, É., Santhanam, R., Léger, P.-M., Courtemanche, F., Fredette, M., & Sénécal, S. (2015). The delayed effect of treadmill desk usage on recall and attention. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.054.
Spironelli, C., & Angrilli, A. (2017). Supine posture affects cortical plasticity in elderly but not young women during a word learning-recognition task. Biological Psychology, 127, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2017.05.014.
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977.
Rugg, M. D., Mark, R. E., Walla, P., Schloerscheidt, A. M., Birch, C. S., & Allan, K. (1998). Dissociation of the neural correlates of implicit and explicit memory. Nature, 392(6676), 595–598. https://doi.org/10.1038/33396.
Fulham, W. R. (2015). EEG display (Version 6.4.9) [Computer software]. Callaghan, New South Wales: Functional Neuroimaging Laboratory, University of Newcastle.
Rice, J. K., Rorden, C., Little, J. S., & Parra, L. C. (2012). Subject position affects EEG magnitudes. NeuroImage, 64, 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.041.
Thibault, R. T., Lifshitz, M., & Raz, A. (2015). Body position alters human resting-state: Insights from multi-postural magnetoencephalography. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 10(3), 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-015-9447-8.
Folstein, J. R., & Van Petten, C. (2008). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review. Psychophysiology, 45(1), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00602.x.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Chang, M., Pavlevchev, S., Flöck, A.N., Walla, P. (2020). The Effect of Body Positions on Word-Recognition: A Multi-methods NeuroIS Study. In: Davis, F., Riedl, R., vom Brocke, J., Léger, PM., Randolph, A., Fischer, T. (eds) Information Systems and Neuroscience. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28144-1_36
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28144-1_36
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28143-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28144-1
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)