Abstract

Abstract This study investigated the role of arousal and effort costs in the cognitive benefits of alternating between sitting and standing postures using a sit‐stand desk, while measuring executive functions, self‐reports, physiology, and neural activity in a 2‐h laboratory session aimed to induce mental fatigue. Two sessions were conducted with a one‐week gap, during which participants alternated between sitting and standing postures each 20‐min block in one session and remained seated in the other. In each block, inhibition, switching, and updating were assessed. We examined effects of time‐on‐task, acute (local) effects of standing versus sitting posture, and cumulative (global) effects of a standing posture that generalize to the subsequent block in which participants sit. Results ( N = 43) confirmed that time‐on‐task increased mental fatigue and decreased arousal. Standing (versus sitting) led to acute increases in arousal levels, including self‐reports, alpha oscillations, and cardiac responses. Standing also decreased physiological and perceived effort costs. Standing enhanced processing speed in the flanker task, attributable to shortened nondecision time and speeded evidence accumulation processes. No significant effects were observed on higher‐level executive functions. Alternating postures also increased heart rate variability cumulatively over time. Exploratory mediation analyses indicated that the positive impact of acute posture on enhanced drift rate was mediated by self‐reported arousal, whereas decreased nondecision time was mediated by reductions in alpha power. In conclusion, alternating between sitting and standing postures can enhance arousal, decrease effort costs, and improve specific cognitive and physiological outcomes.