The research examined 3,943 participants who took part in the Age 46 Biomedical Sweep of the 1970 British Cohort Study. Just over half, 53.3 percent, were female, and all participants included in the analysis had the relevant activity, behavior, cognitive and background data. The cohort follows people born in Britain in 1970, allowing researchers to study health and behavior in a population reaching midlife at the same period. The investigators focused on four sedentary behaviors: reading, internet use, playing video games and watching television. They classified the first three as more cognitively active activities and television viewing as a more cognitively passive activity. This distinction was not intended to imply that every individual engages with media in the same way. Reading can range from challenging nonfiction to light material, internet use can involve learning or passive scrolling, and games vary widely in complexity. The categories were broad behavioral measures, but they offered a way to test whether different kinds of sitting were linked to cognition rather than treating all sedentary time as one uniform exposure.

To measure movement, participants wore activPAL3 accelerometers, devices designed to distinguish body positions and record physical activity. The researchers also collected self-reported estimates of time spent in the specified sedentary activities. Cognitive performance was assessed using three tests that sample different mental abilities. An auditory verbal learning test involving 10 words evaluates verbal learning and memory by examining how well a person can acquire and recall information. A category verbal fluency test asks participants to name animals, providing a measure influenced by language retrieval, semantic memory and executive control. A two-letter cancellation task measures aspects of attention and processing speed, requiring participants to identify target items efficiently among distractors. Scores from the assessments were standardized as z-scores and combined into a global cognition score, the study’s primary outcome. Standardization places results from different tests on a common scale, allowing them to contribute to a composite measure despite having different scoring systems.

The statistical analysis used linear regression models to estimate how an additional hour per day of each activity was associated with cognitive scores. The models adjusted for sex assigned at birth, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, occupational physical activity and educational level. These adjustments are important because cognitive scores and daily routines can be related to factors other than the activity under investigation. Education, for example, may be associated with both the kinds of leisure activities people choose and their performance on cognitive tests. Occupational activity and exercise could also influence the amount of time available for sitting and may be related to health. The researchers additionally conducted sex-stratified analyses, examining associations separately by sex. Because the study was cross-sectional, however, the measurements of behavior and cognition represented the same broad period. Regression can identify patterns of association after accounting for measured covariates, but it cannot establish which behavior came first or whether an unmeasured factor affected both.

Reading showed the clearest association among the sedentary activities studied. In adjusted pooled models, each additional hour per day of reading was associated with a 0.042 standard-deviation higher global cognition score, with a standard error of 0.008 and a 95 percent confidence interval from 0.026 to 0.058. The false discovery rate-adjusted probability value was below 0.001. Internet use was also positively associated with global cognition, although the estimated relationship was smaller: each additional hour per day corresponded to a 0.017 standard-deviation higher score, with a standard error of 0.006 and a 95 percent confidence interval from 0.005 to 0.029. Its adjusted probability value was 0.030. These estimates describe differences between people with different reported activity patterns; they do not predict how much an individual’s cognition would change after deliberately adding an hour of reading or internet use. The size of an association can also be influenced by measurement accuracy, the kinds of content people choose and the social or educational circumstances surrounding those activities.

The two other behaviors did not produce statistically significant associations with global cognition. Television viewing had an estimated coefficient of minus 0.006 standard deviations per additional hour per day, with a standard error of 0.005 and a 95 percent confidence interval ranging from minus 0.017 to 0.004. The false discovery rate-adjusted probability value was 0.297, meaning the analysis did not provide strong evidence of a relationship in either direction. Video game playing had an estimated positive coefficient of 0.015, with a standard error of 0.009 and a confidence interval from minus 0.002 to 0.032; its adjusted probability value was 0.128. The result therefore did not meet the study’s threshold for a statistically significant association. A non-significant result is not proof that an activity has no cognitive relevance. It may reflect limited time spent on the behavior, substantial variation in the types of games or imprecise self-reporting. It does mean that, within these data and models, the researchers could not distinguish the observed estimates reliably from chance variation.

Physical activity showed a separate and important pattern. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was positively associated with global cognition after adjustment, with an estimated coefficient of 0.069 standard deviations for each additional hour per day. The standard error was 0.021, the 95 percent confidence interval extended from 0.027 to 0.110, and the false discovery rate-adjusted probability value was 0.009. This result supports the study’s broader interpretation that replacing a sedentary lifestyle with more movement may be relevant to cognitive health. Yet the analysis does not establish that exercise directly improved the participants’ test scores. People who engage in more vigorous activity may differ in sleep, health, income, social contact, stress, diet or other characteristics that were not fully captured by the available adjustments. The study also did not conclude that cognitively engaging sitting compensates for insufficient physical activity. Rather, its conclusion presents two potentially complementary ideas: accumulating moderate-to-vigorous activity remains a priority, while the composition of unavoidable sitting may also be worth considering.

The biological explanation for the findings remains open. Reading commonly requires sustained attention, visual processing, language comprehension, working memory and integration of information across sentences or pages. Depending on the task, internet use can involve searching, evaluating sources, navigating interfaces, learning and making choices. Such repeated mental operations could be markers of cognitive engagement, but the study did not measure the neural activity or learning processes produced by any particular book, website or online session. People with stronger cognitive abilities may also be more likely to choose reading or intellectually demanding online activities, creating the possibility of reverse causation. Early differences in education, occupational opportunities or lifelong reading habits could influence both activity choices and later test performance. The single assessment of behavior likewise cannot show whether long-term exposure matters more than current routines. Longitudinal studies, repeated cognitive testing and more detailed measures of content and context will be needed to determine whether changing sedentary behaviors alters cognitive trajectories.

For now, the results offer a qualified message for middle-aged adults and for researchers designing public-health advice. Sitting should not be treated as a single category when its cognitive consequences are being studied, but neither should the findings be converted into a prescription that reading or internet use guarantees sharper thinking. The evidence supports maintaining or increasing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and suggests that cognitively active pursuits may be preferable ways to occupy some sedentary time. Future research could test whether associations persist over years, differ across cognitive domains or vary according to the intensity and purpose of digital use. It could also examine whether short periods of movement interrupting sitting provide benefits beyond total daily activity. Because the current analysis used observational, cross-sectional data, its strongest contribution is to identify a pattern for further testing: among adults in midlife, reading and internet use were linked with better global cognitive scores, while television and video games were not. The pattern is intriguing, but experiments and longitudinal evidence are required before it can be considered causal.

Subject of Research: Associations between sedentary activities, physical activity, and cognitive function in middle-aged adults

Article Title: Cognitively engaging sedentary activities are associated with better cognitive function in middle-aged adults: a cross-sectional study using the 1970 British Cohort Study

Article References: Qadi, L. A., Saucier, D., Rayner, S., Pitre, J., Savoie, M., Stadler, J., Jbilou, J., & O’Brien, M. W. (2026). Cognitively engaging sedentary activities are associated with better cognitive function in middle-aged adults: a cross-sectional study using the 1970 British Cohort Study. Journal of Activity, Sedentary and Sleep Behaviors. https://doi.org/10.1186/s44167-026-00110-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s44167-026-00110-5

Keywords: Cognitive function, Middle age, Sedentary behavior, Reading, Internet use, Physical activity, Television, Video games, Verbal memory, Executive function, Cognitively, engaging