Does Practice Modify the Relationship between Postural Control and the Execution of a Secondary Task in Young and Older Individuals?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Numerous daily activities require performing more than one task simultaneously, such as standing while engaging in a conversation. Recent studies have shown that postural control may be degraded when individuals are asked to perform a secondary task and that this effect seems to be more pronounced in older adults. Since various types of secondary tasks have been used in postural control studies, the novelty of the tasks may partly explain why dual-task interference occurs. It is known that novel tasks require greater attentional resources and thus may interfere to a greater extent with the performance of another task. Therefore, by practicing this dual-task situation, interference could perhaps be diminished. Since the dual-tasking efficiency is reduced with aging, practice could be very beneficial to older adults. OBJECTIVES: The main goal of this study was to examine whether practice could modify the changes seen in postural sway when individuals are asked to perform a secondary task while maintaining upright stance and whether older individuals could benefit to a greater extent from practice than would young individuals. The second goal was to examine the dual-task performance in young versus older adults and to determine whether older individuals benefit equally or to a greater extent from practice as compared with young individuals. METHODS: Young and older individuals were asked to stand on a force platform while performing a secondary task or no task. The secondary task condition was repeated six times to examine the effects of practice. RESULTS: Practice did not modify the performance of postural sway, but did lead to an increase in speed of execution of the secondary task for both groups equally. In young participants, the amplitude of sway was decreased, and the frequency of sway was increased, indicating an increased stiffness when performing the cognitive task. Older participants showed increased amplitude of sway and increased frequency of sway in the mediolateral direction only. CONCLUSIONS: Since the dual-task condition was only repeated six times, it could be hypothesized that the effect of practice would be greater, if more trials were added or if more practice sessions were included. More research is needed to verify this hypothesis.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».