Comparing the Effects of Dual‐Task Gait Testing in New and Established Ambulators With Lower Extremity Amputations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Gait is a complex process that involves coordinating motor and sensory systems through higher-order cognitive processes. Walking with a prosthesis after lower extremity amputation challenges these processes. However, the factors that influence the cognitive-motor interaction in gait among lower extremity amputees has not been evaluated. To assess the interaction of cognition and mobility, individuals must be evaluated using the dual-task paradigm. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of etiology and time with prosthesis on dual-task performance in those with lower extremity amputations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Outpatient and inpatient amputee clinics at an academic rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four individuals (aged 58.20±12.27 years; 74.5% male) were stratified into 3 groups; 1 group of new prosthetic ambulators with transtibial amputations (NewPA) and 2 groups of established ambulators: transtibial amputations of vascular etiology (TTA-vas), transtibial amputations of nonvascular etiology (TTA-nonvas). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to complete the L Test measured functional mobility under single and dual-task conditions. A serial arithmetic task (subtraction by 3s) was paired with the L Test to create the dual-task test condition. Single-task performance on the cognitive arithmetic task was also recorded. Dual-task costs (DTCs) were calculated for performance on the cognitive and gait tasks. Analysis of variance determined differences between groups. A performance-resource operating characteristic (POC) graph was used to graphically display DTCs. RESULTS: Gait performance was worse under dual-task conditions for all groups. Gait was significantly slower under dual-task conditions for the TTA-vas (P < .001), TTA-nonvas (P < .001), and NewPA groups (P < .001). However, there was no between-group difference for gait DTC. The 3 groups tested did not differ in the amount of cognitive DTC (DTCcog). Dual-task conditions also had a negative impact on cognitive task performance for the TTA-nonvas (P = .02) and NewPA groups (P < .001). The TTA-vas group had a slight improvement during dual-task conditions and has a positive DTCcog as a result (P = .04). However, no between-group differences were seen for DTCcog. The POC graph demonstrated that many individuals had a decrease in performance on both tasks; however, the gait task was prioritized for the majority (56.2%) of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive distractions while walking pose challenges to individuals regardless of etiology, level of amputation, or time with the prosthesis. These findings highlight that individuals are at risk for adverse events when performing multiple tasks while walking. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».