Dual-Task Demands of Hand Movements for Adults with Stroke: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: For adults with stroke, walking while performing a cognitive task can be challenging, resulting in slower walking, poorer cognitive performance, or decreased performance on both tasks. It is not known if dual-task deficits are also present for upper limb movements for adults with stroke. PURPOSE: To determine if unilateral movements of the affected and less affected hand are compromised when walking or talking. METHODS: Nineteen community-dwelling adults with stroke were video- and audiotaped while performing in single- and dual-task conditions. Tasks included repeated, rhythmic hand movements with the affected and less affected hand, walking a narrow pathway, and speaking. For dual-task conditions, movements of each hand were done while walking and while talking. The rate of hand movement, cadence, and speech rate were analyzed using repeated measures analyses of variance. RESULTS: Affected hand movement rate was the same for single- and dual-task conditions. The rate of less affected hand movement was affected by dual-task conditions; this was due to an increase in hand movement rate while talking. Examination of cadence and speech rates revealed that cadence was decreased when moving the affected hand. Speech rate increased when accompanied by hand movements, but post hoc analyses were not significant. CONCLUSION: For those with stroke, dual-task deficits are seen with slower walking while moving the affected hand. In contrast, hand movements while speaking may have a more complex relationship, with possible faster speech rates in dual-task conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".