## 3 Results
Intervention \(\times\) Time only: Results suggest that there were non-significant small increases in feelings of confusion over the course of the 90 min in the sitting (\(\Delta 0.12\)) and walking (\(\Delta 0.05\)) interventions; however, individuals had significant declines in confusion in the standing (\(\Delta 0.37\)) intervention. Additionally, while there was only a small decline in feelings of vigor in both the walking (\(\Delta 0.54\)) and sitting conditions (\(\Delta 0.64\)), there was a larger, but significantly greater decline in feelings of vigor over time in the standing condition (\(\Delta 1.65\)). The present study also finds a significant trait x intervention interaction (F (1.63, 47.17) = 4.234, \(p=0.029\), \(\eta^{2}_{\rm C}=0.036\)) and a significant main effect for time (F (1.47, 42.62) = \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Factor** & **Measure** & **F-Stat** & \(p\)**-Value** & \(\eta^{2}\)**G** \\ \hline Trait Physical Fatigue \(\times\) Intervention & Depression & 3.618 & 0.045 & 0.102 \\ \hline Intervention \(\times\) Time & Vigor & 2.658 & 0.048 & 0.011 \\ \hline Trait Mental Energy \(\times\) Intervention & Forward counting average reaction time & 3.79 & 0.040 & 0.043 \\ \hline Trait Mental Energy & RVIP correct secondary & 4.423 & 0.048 & 0.128 \\ \hline Trait Mental Energy & RVIP incorrect secondary & 4.809 & 0.040 & 0.074 \\ \hline Trait Mental Energy \(\times\) Intervention \(\times\) Time & RVIP tertiary percent correct & 3.436 & 0.023 & 0.023 \\ \hline Trait Mental Energy \(\times\) Intervention & Serial subtract three correct & 3.911 & 0.029 & 0.040 \\ \hline Trait Mental Energy \(\times\) Time & Serial subtract three attempts & 4.382 & 0.030 & 0.019 \\ \hline Trait Mental Energy & Vigor & 7.095 & 0.015 & 0.101 \\ \hline Trait Mental Energy & State Physical Fatigue & 6.313 & 0.021 & 0.061 \\ \hline Trait Mental Fatigue \(\times\) Intervention & Distractors correct & 4.160 & 0.025 & 0.036 \\ \hline Trait Mental Fatigue \(\times\) Intervention & RVIP correct primary & 4.357 & 0.027 & 0.028 \\ \hline Time & RVIP correct tertiary & 3.757 & 0.034 & 0.013 \\ \hline Trait Mental Fatigue \(\times\) Intervention & RVIP primary omitted & 4.373 & 0.027 & 0.028 \\ \hline Trait Mental Fatigue \(\times\) Intervention & RVIP primary percent correct & 4.377 & 0.027 & 0.028 \\ \hline Trait Mental Fatigue \(\times\) Intervention & RVIP tertiary percent correct & 3.782 & 0.033 & 0.013 \\ \hline Trait Mental Fatigue \(\times\) Intervention \(\times\) Time & Serial subtract seven correct & 2.825 & 0.045 & 0.02 \\ \hline Trait Mental Fatigue & Stroop percentage correct incongruent & 4.664 & 0.041 & 0.022 \\ \hline Trait Mental Fatigue \(\times\) Time & Stroop percentage correct incongruent & 5.917 & 0.019 & 0.046 \\ \hline Time & Fatigue & 6.548 & 0.014 & 0.023 \\ \hline Trait Mental Fatigue \(\times\) Time & Fatigue & 6.924 & 0.012 & 0.024 \\ \hline Trait Mental Fatigue \(\times\) Intervention \(\times\) Time & Fatigue & 3.510 & 0.027 & 0.017 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._5.523, \(p\) = 0.013, \(\eta^{2}\)G = 0.029) for reaction time on the RVIP primary task. Post hoc analyses suggest that reaction times decreased incrementally over time (\(\Delta\)0.04 s) with low trait physical energy individuals having the best reaction time during the walking condition (0.65 \(\pm\) 0.08 s), while there were no significant differences in reaction time for any other conditions. A significant trait x intervention x time interaction for reaction time on the serial addition task was also found (F (2.91, 84.33) = 3.562, \(p\) = 0.029, \(\eta^{2}\)G = 0.017) and post-hoc analyses suggest that individuals who report low trait physical energy significantly improved their performance during the walking condition (\(-\Delta\)0.90 s), while individuals with high trait energy performed worse (+\(\Delta\)0.44 s) in the walking condition. There were no differences in reaction time between groups for the sitting or standing interventions.