Physical InactivityNCT06843161
Robot-based Intervention to Improve Physical Activity in Older Adults
A study testing The jog or ground go no go task for retraining automatic bias in people with Physical Inactivity and Aging, run by University of Ottawa at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
Physical inactivity is considered a global pandemic negatively impacting the health of over 60% of older adults in America. Interventions aimed at improving physical activity in older adults focus on training reflective processes such as providing information on health benefits of physical activity. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 60 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Physical Inactivity, Aging, Sedentary Behaviors
- What is being tested?
- The jog or ground go no go task for retraining automatic bias
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 40 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 1 Mar 2025to 30 Sep 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 60 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 60 years of age or older
- Able to walk
- Able to communicate in English
- Able to travel to the University of Ottawa Lees Campus
Who cannot join
- Diagnosed neurological or psychiatric disorder
- Impaired motor function of the upper limbs
- Unable to understand task instructions
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Canada1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Faculty of Health Sciences
Ottawa, Ontario, K1S5S9
Kayne Park, PhD, 613-305-3310, apark2@uottawa.ca
Matthieu Boisgontier, PhD, 604-401-1993, matthieu.boisgontier@uottawa.ca
About this study
Official title: Retraining Automatic Attitudes Towards Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour in Adults 60 Years of Age or Older
Physical inactivity is considered a global pandemic negatively impacting the health of over 60% of older adults in America. Interventions aimed at improving physical activity in older adults focus on training reflective processes such as providing information on health benefits of physical activity. These interventions generally find that participants improved their intentions to be physically active rather than supporting actual change in behaviours to become physically active.
There is growing support for the idea that human behaviour is the result of a combination of quick automatic processes and slower reflective processes. Interventional studies have used cognitive bias modification tasks that target the quick automatic processes to retrain participant's bias. Such studies find that participant's bias towards diet, alcohol, and phobias can be altered using these cognitive bias modification tasks.
In this study, the investigators developed a new training task using a robotic device that aims to retrain automatic bias towards physical activity and sedentary behaviours. The robotic device allows greater immersive environments for participants to interact with and be more engaged with the cognitive bias modification task. This interventional study is testing whether this new robot-based training and the protocol for assessing physical activity is feasible for retraining older adults' bias towards physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Participants will be examined on their daily physical activity using an accelerometer, their physical ability using functional tests, and their perceptions on physical activity using questionnaires. To determine whether this protocol is feasible, the investigators will examine participant recruitment and retention rates.
Read the detailed description
Over the past two decades, society has encouraged people to be more physically active. As a result, most individuals are now aware of the positive effects of regular physical activity and have the intention to exercise. Yet, this intention is not sufficient, as exercise plans are often not executed. Despite gradually scaling up actions that promote physical activity over the years, people are actually becoming less active. From 2010 to 2016, the number of inactive adults has increased by 5% worldwide, currently affecting more than 1 in 4 adults (1.4 billion people). This gap between intention and action is a challenge that health professionals need to address in order to counteract the pandemic of physical inactivity.
Physical activity is one of the top contributors to health, reducing rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and depression. This wide spectrum of benefits is particularly important for older adults, who often suffer structural and functional deterioration across several physiological systems. Physical activity can reduce and delay the impact of this age-related deterioration in health and functional independence. However, in the Americas, more than 60% of older adults are physically inactive.
Current interventions to enhance physical activity in older adults rely mainly on reflective processes by providing rational information about the health benefits of a physically active lifestyle. From this perspective, changing conscious goals should lead to substantial behavioural change. Yet, meta-analyses indicate that these interventions are more effective in changing intentions than actual behaviour. Thus, new interventions targeting alternative processes are necessary to explore.
Recent work highlights that engagement in physical activity is governed not only by reflective processes, but also by automatic processes acting outside conscious awareness. For example, in active individuals, stimuli associated with physical activity attract attention, trigger positive affective reactions, and activate approach tendencies. These automatic reactions are thought to facilitate the translation of intention into action. From this perspective, physical inactivity is the result of an imbalance between strong negative automatic reactions to stimuli associated with physical activity and a relatively weaker intention to be physically active. This imbalance between reflective and automatic processes can be particularly pronounced in older adults, who are more likely to spontaneously associate physical activity with fear, pain, or discomfort felt during physical exercise. Therefore, older adults could be particularly responsive to and benefit the most from an intervention targeting the automatic reactions to physical activity and sedentary stimuli.
Interventions targeting automatic reactions to health-related stimuli have already proven to be successful in changing behaviour. For example, interventions have been used to retrain the automatic reaction to alcohol. Using a joystick, patients were repeatedly asked to avoid pictures on a screen that were related to alcohol and to approach pictures unrelated to alcohol. Results showed that adding to a regular treatment an intervention targeting cognitive bias reduced the relapse rates one year after treatment discharge by 9% to 13%. These interventions have also proven to be useful in impacting smoking, social anxiety, and eating behaviour.
- Conditions
- Physical Inactivity, Aging, Sedentary Behaviors, Bias, Implicit, Cognition
- Being tested
- The jog or ground go no go task for retraining automatic bias
- Medical subject headings
- Sedentary Behavior, Bias, Implicit
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
The jog or ground go no go task for retraining automatic biasDevice
Recruited participants will be performing the JOGGNG Task on the Kinarm Endpoint Laboratory. This task requires participants to control a robotic handle to manipulate a virtual avatar that looks as if it is jogging across a field. During the jogging, a frisbee will appear and quickly move towards the avatar, eventually tilting clockwise or counterclockwise. Participants are required to either reach quickly to grab the frisbee from the air during clockwise tilts or to not move during counterclockwise tilts. This tilt/movement associated is reversed to control for a potential bias in tilt angle and movement. An image of physical activity or sedentary behaviour will appear inside of the frisbee but participants are not told that it is associated with any of the tilts. Each trial consists of one frisbee and participants will complete a total of 3 blocks of 360 trials each which will take approximately 30 minutes to complete.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Interventional Group: Responses Biased towards Visual Stimulus | Experimental | Successfully recruited individuals will be performing the JOGGNG Task on the Kinarm Endpoint Laboratory. This task requires participants to quickly make a reaching movement to manipulate a virtual avatar that is jogging across a field. During this, a frisbee will move towards the avatar and will tilt clockwise or counterclockwise. Participants have been instructed to either reach quickly to grab the frisbee from the air during clockwise tilts or to not move during counterclockwise tilts. This tilt/movement associated is reversed to control for potential bias in tilt angle and movement. An image of physical activity or sedentary behaviour will appear inside of the frisbee but participants are not told that it is associated with any of the tilts. For the Interventional Group, the tilt associated with movement will have an image of physical activity appear 90% of the time and the tilt associated with no movement will have an image of sedentary behaviour 90% of the time. Receives: Device: The jog or ground go no go task for retraining automatic bias |
| Control Group: Responses Randomly Assigned to Visual Stimulus | Sham comparator | Recruited participants will be performing the JOGGNG Task on the Kinarm Endpoint Laboratory. This task requires participants to quickly make a reaching movement to manipulate a virtual avatar that is jogging across a field. During this, a frisbee will move towards the avatar and will tilt clockwise or counterclockwise. Participants have been instructed to either reach quickly to grab the frisbee from the air during clockwise tilts or to not move during counterclockwise tilts. This tilt/movement associated is reversed to control for potential bias in tilt angle and movement. An image of physical activity or sedentary behaviour will appear inside of the frisbee but participants are not told that it is associated with any of the tilts. For the Control Group, the tilt associated with movement will have an image of physical activity appear 50% of the time and the tilt associated with no movement will have an image of sedentary behaviour 50% of the time. Receives: Device: The jog or ground go no go task for retraining automatic bias |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Determinants of Protocol Feasibility: Recruitment Rate and Retention Rate
The main purpose of this study is to determine whether the intervention protocol is feasible and thus the primary outcomes are recruitment rates, retention rates, and reasons for study dropout.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Secondary outcomes (7)
Actigraph wGT3X-BT accelerometers for measuring daily step count
Participants will wear the a small research grade accelerometer on their right hip with support hardware supplied by the researchers to measure their daily step count. As a key measure of physical activity, this device will be worn for 1 week before intervention, after intervention, and once more 1 month after the intervention.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Approach Avoidance Task
The manikin approach avoidance task has been previously used to determine automatic attitudes towards physical activity and sedentary behaviour. It is a laptop-based task where participants move an avatar towards or away from an image of physical activity or sedentary behaviour. The task measures the reaction time that participants respond to each image type to determine whether they have biased tendencies towards a certain image.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
6 Minute Walk Test
The 6 Minute Walk Test is a common measure to assess walking ability. The test is conducted by having the participant walk as far as possible on a 30m flat indoor course for a period of 6 minutes. Standardized encouragement will be provided at each minute. Total distance walked (meters) in 6 minutes will be documented. The major outcome is the distance walked during the 6 minutes.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Hand Dynamometer for Grip Strength
Grip strength will be assessed with the JAMAR Hand Dynamometer. Participants will perform the test using their reported dominant hand in a seated position with their elbow flexed 90 degrees. Two tests would be performed by each participant and the higher value (Kilogram*Force) will be recorded as hand grip strength.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL)
The scale assesses quality of life (QoL) over four domains: Physical Health (seven items), Psychological Health (six items), Social Relationships (three items), and Environmental Health (eight items). Scores for each item can range from one to five with higher scores indicating better QoL.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Affective and Instrumental Attitude Scale (ASIS)
This scale assesses participants' attitudes towards physical activity. It has four questions scored from one to seven assessing affective and instrumental attitudes. Scores nearer 1 indicate less affective/instrumental attitudes while scores nearer 7 indicate greater affective/instrumental attitudes.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Physical Effort Scale (PES)
This questionnaire asks about the participant's perceptions about physical effort, which is usually associated with increased heart rate and breathing. It consists of eight items ranging from one to five with higher scores indicating greater agreement.
Measured: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Feb 2025
- Study start1 Mar 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion30 Sep 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Sep 2025 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (10)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Physical InactivityStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Ottawa
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Banting Research Foundation, Mitacs, Perley Health
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Kayne Park, University of Ottawa
- Investigators
- Kayne Park, PhD, Principal investigator, University of OttawaMatthieu P Boisgontier, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Ottawa
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06843161
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- H-01-25-11168
- Status last verified
- Feb 2025
- First submitted
- 7 Feb 2025
- Last updated
- 4 Mar 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: All data from participants that were included in the final study report will be shared on an online repository.
Publications
Veling, H., Becker, D., Liu, H., Quandt, J., & Holland, R. W. How go/no-go training changes behavior: A value-based decision-making perspective. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2022;47:101206.
Scott SH. Apparatus for measuring and perturbing shoulder and elbow joint positions and torques during reaching. J Neurosci Methods. 1999 Jul 15;89(2):119-27. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0270(99)00053-9.
PubMed 10491942Rhodes RE, McEwan, D, Rebar AL. Theories of physical activity behavior change: A history and synthesis of approaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2019;42:100-9.
Marteau TM, Hollands GJ, Fletcher PC. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science. 2012 Sep 21;337(6101):1492-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1226918.
PubMed 22997327Conroy DE, Hyde AL, Doerksen SE, Ribeiro NF. Implicit attitudes and explicit motivation prospectively predict physical activity. Ann Behav Med. 2010 May;39(2):112-8. doi: 10.1007/s12160-010-9161-0.
PubMed 20140542Chevance G, Bernard P, Chamberland PE, Rebar A. The association between implicit attitudes toward physical activity and physical activity behaviour: a systematic review and correlational meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2019 Sep;13(3):248-276. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2019.1618726. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
PubMed 31117901Cheval B, Tipura E, Burra N, Frossard J, Chanal J, Orsholits D, Radel R, Boisgontier MP. Avoiding sedentary behaviors requires more cortical resources than avoiding physical activity: An EEG study. Neuropsychologia. 2018 Oct;119:68-80. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.07.029. Epub 2018 Jul 26.
PubMed 30056055Cheval B, Sarrazin P, Isoard-Gautheur S, Radel R, Friese M. Reflective and impulsive processes explain (in)effectiveness of messages promoting physical activity: a randomized controlled trial. Health Psychol. 2015 Jan;34(1):10-9. doi: 10.1037/hea0000102. Epub 2014 Aug 18.
PubMed 25133840Cheval B, Boisgontier MP. The Theory of Effort Minimization in Physical Activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2021 Jul 1;49(3):168-178. doi: 10.1249/JES.0000000000000252.
PubMed 34112744Aulbach MB, Knittle K, Haukkala A. Implicit process interventions in eating behaviour: a meta-analysis examining mediators and moderators. Health Psychol Rev. 2019 Jun;13(2):179-208. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2019.1571933. Epub 2019 Feb 6.
PubMed 30676235
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 4 Mar 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Retraining Automatic Attitudes Towards Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour in Adults 60 Years of Age or Older
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06843161
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- H-01-25-11168
- Conditions
- Physical Inactivity, Aging, Sedentary Behaviors, Bias, Implicit, Cognition
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 40 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University of OttawaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Banting Research Foundation, Mitacs, Perley Health
- Study start
- 1 Mar 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 30 Sep 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Sep 2025 (estimated)
- First posted
- 24 Feb 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Physical inactivity is considered a global pandemic negatively impacting the health of over 60% of older adults in America. Interventions aimed at improving physical activity in older adults focus on training reflective processes such as providing information on health benefits of physical activity. These interventions generally find that participants improved their intentions to be physically active rather than supporting actual change in behaviours to become physically active.
There is growing support for the idea that human behaviour is the result of a combination of quick automatic processes and slower reflective processes. Interventional studies have used cognitive bias modification tasks that target the quick automatic processes to retrain participant's bias. Such studies find that participant's bias towards diet, alcohol, and phobias can be altered using these cognitive bias modification tasks.
In this study, the investigators developed a new training task using a robotic device that aims to retrain automatic bias towards physical activity and sedentary behaviours. The robotic device allows greater immersive environments for participants to interact with and be more engaged with the cognitive bias modification task. This interventional study is testing whether this new robot-based training and the protocol for assessing physical activity is feasible for retraining older adults' bias towards physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Participants will be examined on their daily physical activity using an accelerometer, their physical ability using functional tests, and their perceptions on physical activity using questionnaires. To determine whether this protocol is feasible, the investigators will examine participant recruitment and retention rates.
Detailed description
Over the past two decades, society has encouraged people to be more physically active. As a result, most individuals are now aware of the positive effects of regular physical activity and have the intention to exercise. Yet, this intention is not sufficient, as exercise plans are often not executed. Despite gradually scaling up actions that promote physical activity over the years, people are actually becoming less active. From 2010 to 2016, the number of inactive adults has increased by 5% worldwide, currently affecting more than 1 in 4 adults (1.4 billion people). This gap between intention and action is a challenge that health professionals need to address in order to counteract the pandemic of physical inactivity.
Physical activity is one of the top contributors to health, reducing rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and depression. This wide spectrum of benefits is particularly important for older adults, who often suffer structural and functional deterioration across several physiological systems. Physical activity can reduce and delay the impact of this age-related deterioration in health and functional independence. However, in the Americas, more than 60% of older adults are physically inactive.
Current interventions to enhance physical activity in older adults rely mainly on reflective processes by providing rational information about the health benefits of a physically active lifestyle. From this perspective, changing conscious goals should lead to substantial behavioural change. Yet, meta-analyses indicate that these interventions are more effective in changing intentions than actual behaviour. Thus, new interventions targeting alternative processes are necessary to explore.
Recent work highlights that engagement in physical activity is governed not only by reflective processes, but also by automatic processes acting outside conscious awareness. For example, in active individuals, stimuli associated with physical activity attract attention, trigger positive affective reactions, and activate approach tendencies. These automatic reactions are thought to facilitate the translation of intention into action. From this perspective, physical inactivity is the result of an imbalance between strong negative automatic reactions to stimuli associated with physical activity and a relatively weaker intention to be physically active. This imbalance between reflective and automatic processes can be particularly pronounced in older adults, who are more likely to spontaneously associate physical activity with fear, pain, or discomfort felt during physical exercise. Therefore, older adults could be particularly responsive to and benefit the most from an intervention targeting the automatic reactions to physical activity and sedentary stimuli.
Interventions targeting automatic reactions to health-related stimuli have already proven to be successful in changing behaviour. For example, interventions have been used to retrain the automatic reaction to alcohol. Using a joystick, patients were repeatedly asked to avoid pictures on a screen that were related to alcohol and to approach pictures unrelated to alcohol. Results showed that adding to a regular treatment an intervention targeting cognitive bias reduced the relapse rates one year after treatment discharge by 9% to 13%. These interventions have also proven to be useful in impacting smoking, social anxiety, and eating behaviour.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Interventional Group: Responses Biased towards Visual Stimulus | Experimental | Device: The jog or ground go no go task for retraining automatic biasSuccessfully recruited individuals will be performing the JOGGNG Task on the Kinarm Endpoint Laboratory. This task requires participants to quickly make a reaching movement to manipulate a virtual avatar that is jogging across a field. During this, a frisbee will move towards the avatar and will tilt clockwise or counterclockwise. Participants have been instructed to either reach quickly to grab the frisbee from the air during clockwise tilts or to not move during counterclockwise tilts. This tilt/movement associated is reversed to control for potential bias in tilt angle and movement. An image of physical activity or sedentary behaviour will appear inside of the frisbee but participants are not told that it is associated with any of the tilts. For the Interventional Group, the tilt associated with movement will have an image of physical activity appear 90% of the time and the tilt associated with no movement will have an image of sedentary behaviour 90% of the time. |
| Control Group: Responses Randomly Assigned to Visual Stimulus | Sham comparator | Device: The jog or ground go no go task for retraining automatic biasRecruited participants will be performing the JOGGNG Task on the Kinarm Endpoint Laboratory. This task requires participants to quickly make a reaching movement to manipulate a virtual avatar that is jogging across a field. During this, a frisbee will move towards the avatar and will tilt clockwise or counterclockwise. Participants have been instructed to either reach quickly to grab the frisbee from the air during clockwise tilts or to not move during counterclockwise tilts. This tilt/movement associated is reversed to control for potential bias in tilt angle and movement. An image of physical activity or sedentary behaviour will appear inside of the frisbee but participants are not told that it is associated with any of the tilts. For the Control Group, the tilt associated with movement will have an image of physical activity appear 50% of the time and the tilt associated with no movement will have an image of sedentary behaviour 50% of the time. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 60 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 60 years of age or older
- Able to walk
- Able to communicate in English
- Able to travel to the University of Ottawa Lees Campus
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Diagnosed neurological or psychiatric disorder
- Impaired motor function of the upper limbs
- Unable to understand task instructions
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| The jog or ground go no go task for retraining automatic biasRecruited participants will be performing the JOGGNG Task on the Kinarm Endpoint Laboratory. This task requires participants to control a robotic handle to manipulate a virtual avatar that looks as if it is jogging across a field. During the jogging, a frisbee will appear and quickly move towards the avatar, eventually tilting clockwise or counterclockwise. Participants are required to either reach quickly to grab the frisbee from the air during clockwise tilts or to not move during counterclockwise tilts. This tilt/movement associated is reversed to control for a potential bias in tilt angle and movement. An image of physical activity or sedentary behaviour will appear inside of the frisbee but participants are not told that it is associated with any of the tilts. Each trial consists of one frisbee and participants will complete a total of 3 blocks of 360 trials each which will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. | Device | Control Group: Responses Randomly Assigned to Visual Stimulus, Interventional Group: Responses Biased towards Visual Stimulus |
Primary outcome
Determinants of Protocol Feasibility: Recruitment Rate and Retention Rate
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
The main purpose of this study is to determine whether the intervention protocol is feasible and thus the primary outcomes are recruitment rates, retention rates, and reasons for study dropout.
7 secondary outcomes
Actigraph wGT3X-BT accelerometers for measuring daily step count
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Approach Avoidance Task
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
6 Minute Walk Test
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Hand Dynamometer for Grip Strength
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Affective and Instrumental Attitude Scale (ASIS)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Physical Effort Scale (PES)
Time frame: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 4 Mar 2025.
- BackgroundVeling, H., Becker, D., Liu, H., Quandt, J., & Holland, R. W. How go/no-go training changes behavior: A value-based decision-making perspective. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2022;47:101206.
- Background: PubMed 10491942Scott SH. Apparatus for measuring and perturbing shoulder and elbow joint positions and torques during reaching. J Neurosci Methods. 1999 Jul 15;89(2):119-27. doi: 10.1016/s0165-0270(99)00053-9.
- BackgroundRhodes RE, McEwan, D, Rebar AL. Theories of physical activity behavior change: A history and synthesis of approaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2019;42:100-9.
- Background: PubMed 22997327Marteau TM, Hollands GJ, Fletcher PC. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science. 2012 Sep 21;337(6101):1492-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1226918.
- Background: PubMed 20140542Conroy DE, Hyde AL, Doerksen SE, Ribeiro NF. Implicit attitudes and explicit motivation prospectively predict physical activity. Ann Behav Med. 2010 May;39(2):112-8. doi: 10.1007/s12160-010-9161-0.
- Background: PubMed 31117901Chevance G, Bernard P, Chamberland PE, Rebar A. The association between implicit attitudes toward physical activity and physical activity behaviour: a systematic review and correlational meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2019 Sep;13(3):248-276. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2019.1618726. Epub 2019 Jun 12.
- Background: PubMed 30056055Cheval B, Tipura E, Burra N, Frossard J, Chanal J, Orsholits D, Radel R, Boisgontier MP. Avoiding sedentary behaviors requires more cortical resources than avoiding physical activity: An EEG study. Neuropsychologia. 2018 Oct;119:68-80. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.07.029. Epub 2018 Jul 26.
- Background: PubMed 25133840Cheval B, Sarrazin P, Isoard-Gautheur S, Radel R, Friese M. Reflective and impulsive processes explain (in)effectiveness of messages promoting physical activity: a randomized controlled trial. Health Psychol. 2015 Jan;34(1):10-9. doi: 10.1037/hea0000102. Epub 2014 Aug 18.
- Background: PubMed 34112744Cheval B, Boisgontier MP. The Theory of Effort Minimization in Physical Activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2021 Jul 1;49(3):168-178. doi: 10.1249/JES.0000000000000252.
- Background: PubMed 30676235Aulbach MB, Knittle K, Haukkala A. Implicit process interventions in eating behaviour: a meta-analysis examining mediators and moderators. Health Psychol Rev. 2019 Jun;13(2):179-208. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2019.1571933. Epub 2019 Feb 6.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. All data from participants that were included in the final study report will be shared on an online repository.
Related trials for Physical Inactivity
Enrolling by invitation
Recreational Badminton, Sleep and Melatonin
Sedentary Behavior
Active, not recruiting
Future School of Comprehensive Well-Being
Learning, Comprehensive Wellbeing
RecruitingEarly Phase 1
Role of ET-1, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Behavior in Microvascular Dysfunction Following GDM
Gestational Diabetes, Endothelial Dysfunction
Not yet recruiting
Wearable Ankle Power Training (WearAPT) for Enhanced Mobility in Aging
Sedentary Behavior / Physical Inactivity, Aged
Active, not recruiting
Promoting Physical Activity in Older Hispanic/Latino(a) Adults
Sedentary Behavior, Physical Inactivity
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Kayne Park, PhD principal investigator
University of Ottawa
Matthieu P Boisgontier, PhD principal investigator
University of Ottawa
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing The jog or ground go no go task for retraining automatic bias in people with Physical Inactivity and Aging, run by University of Ottawa at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 4 Mar 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Kayne Park, PhD (613-305-3310, apark2@uottawa.ca), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Determinants of Protocol Feasibility: Recruitment Rate and Retention Rate (time frame: From enrollment to the end of recruitment at 7 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06843161, which also lists 10 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 4 Mar 2025.