The effect of single and dual task training on the intracortical inhibition in healthy young adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction The evidence for changes in intracortical inhibition when executing two tasks simultaneously (i.e., dual tasking) is ambiguous as decreased (Corp et al., 2014) and increased (Corp et al., 2016) inhibition were reported. One way to bring more light into this question is to tests the effect of a single task training (STT) and a dual task training (DTT) on the short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) during a single balancing task and two different dual tasks in healthy young adults. Methods Twenty-nine healthy young adults were randomly separated into two groups participating in STT (n = 15) or DTT (n = 14) consisting of 6 training sessions within 3 weeks. Before and after the training, a single task (balancing on a rocker board) was performed at two resistance levels (easy and hard). Additionally to the single task, either a cognitive (2-back number recall) or a motor (balancing a ball on a hand-held tray) dual task was executed simultaneously. During execution of these three tasks, SICI was measured with transcranial magnetic stimulation over the motor cortical area representing the right tibialis anterior. Results Training improvements in balance performance were group and task-specific over time (p = .018). While the STT group improved more in the single balance task (12.3% vs. 6.6% DTT), the DTT group had more sway reductions in the motor dual task condition (13.7% vs. 4.5% STT). Similar statistical outcome (p = .034) was observed for the dual task costs (DTC). There was a tendence for SICI (p = .075), mainly indicating higher increase in SICI for the DTT group in the motor dual task (16.0% vs. 5.8% STT). During the execution of the single balance task, the group-specific adaptations in SICI were less pronounced (13.7% DTT vs. 16.2% STT). When analyzing the SICI dual task difference (Δ) from single to dual task, SICI is altered group and task specific (p = .011). The DTT group could increase the dual task difference in SICI in the dual motor condition (Δ 3.2%), whereas the STT group had a decrease (Δ -9.6%). Discussion/Conclusion The results of this study show that DTT causes gains in balance performance and increases in SICI when the secondary task is also a motor task, but not when the second task is a cognitive one. STT is particularly beneficial in the single task. It is therefore assumed that intracortical inhibition is important during the simultaneous performance of two motor tasks, while intracortical inhibition was not modulated in a group-specific manner by the additional cognitive task. References Corp, D. T., Lum, J. A. G., Tooley, G. A., & Pearce, A. J. (2014). Corticospinal activity during dual tasking: A systematic review and meta-analysis of TMS literature from 1995 to 2013. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 43, 74-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.03.017 Corp, D. T., Rogers, M. A., Youssef, G. J., & Pearce, A. J. (2016). The effect of dual-task difficulty on the inhibition of the motor cortex. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 443-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4479-2
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 | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».