Functional neuroimaging of the interference between working memory and the control of periodic ankle movement timing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited information processing capacity in the brain necessitates task prioritisation and subsequent adaptive behavioural strategies for the dual-task coordination of locomotion with severe concurrent cognitive loading. Commonly observed strategies include prioritisation of gait at the cost of reduced performance in the cognitive task. Alternatively alterations of gait parameters such as gait velocity have been reported presumably to free processing capacity for the benefit of performance in the cognitive task. The aim of this study was to describe the neuroanatomical correlates of adaptive behavioural strategies in cognitive-motor dual-tasking when the competition for information processing capacity is severe and may exceed individuals' capacity limitations. METHODS: During an fMRI experiment, 12 young adults performed slow continuous, auditorily paced bilateral anti-phase ankle dorsi-plantarflexion movements as an element of normal gait at .5 Hz in single and dual task modes. The secondary task involved a visual, alphabetic N-back task with presentation rate jittered around .7 Hz. The N-back task, which randomly occurred in 0-back or 2-back form, was modified into a silent counting task to avoid confounding motor responses at the cost of slightly increasing the task's general coordinative complexity. Participants' ankle movements were recorded using an optoelectronic motion capture system to derive kinematic parameters representing the stability of the movement timing and synchronization. Participants were instructed to perform both tasks as accurately as possible. RESULTS: Increased processing complexity in the dual-task 2-back condition led to significant changes in movement parameters such as the average inter-response interval, the coefficient of variation of absolute asynchrony and the standard deviation of peak angular velocity. A regions-of-interest analysis indicated correlations between these parameters and local activations within the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) such that lower IFG activations coincided with performance decrements. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-task interference effects show that the production of periodically timed ankle movements, taken as modelling elements of the normal gait cycle, draws on higher-level cognitive resources involved in working memory. The interference effect predominantly concerns the timing accuracy of the ankle movements. Reduced activations within regions of the left IFG, and in some respect also within the superior parietal lobule, were identified as one factor affecting the timing of periodic ankle movements resulting in involuntary 'hastening' during severe dual-task working memory load. This 'hastening' phenomenon may be an expression of re-automated locomotor control when higher-order cognitive processing capacity can no longer be allocated to the movements due to the demands of the cognitive task. The results of our study also propose the left IFG as a target region to improve performance during dual-task walking by techniques for non-invasive brain stimulation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".