Associations Between Cognitive and Gait Performance During Single- and Dual-Task Walking in People With Parkinson Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairments in Parkinson disease (PD) manifest as deficits in speed of processing, working memory, and executive function and attention abilities. The gait impairment in PD is well documented to include reduced speed, shortened step lengths, and increased step-to-step variability. However, there is a paucity of research examining the relationship between overground walking and cognitive performance in people with PD. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to examine the relationship between both the mean and variability of gait spatiotemporal parameters and cognitive performance across a broad range of cognitive domains. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used. METHODS: Thirty-five participants with no dementia and diagnosed with idiopathic PD completed a battery of 12 cognitive tests that yielded 3 orthogonal factors: processing speed, working memory, and executive function and attention. Participants completed 10 trials of overground walking (single-task walking) and 5 trials of overground walking while counting backward by 3's (dual-task walking). RESULTS: All gait measures were impaired by the dual task. Cognitive processing speed correlated with stride length and walking speed. Executive function correlated with step width variability. There were no significant associations with working memory. Regression models relating speed of processing to gait spatiotemporal variables revealed that including dual-task costs in the model significantly improved the fit of the model. LIMITATIONS: Participants with PD were tested only in the on-medication state. CONCLUSIONS: Different characteristics of gait are related to distinct types of cognitive processing, which may be differentially affected by dual-task walking due to the pathology of PD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".