Using dual task walking as an aid to assess executive dysfunction ecologically in neurological populations: A narrative review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within rehabilitation, clinical assessment plays a crucial role in diagnosis, prognostication and making decisions about return to function. The ecological validity of the assessment of executive dysfunction has become a particular focus in neuropsychology and is gaining interest in mobility research and neurological rehabilitation of acquired brain injury or degenerative neurological diseases. In this narrative review, we look at how the task of walking and the inseparable cognitive demands and interference of the surrounding environment are exploited in dual task walking (DTW) paradigms to expose executive dysfunction. While quite a number of studies and reviews have recently focused on the utility of DTW for gait assessment, particularly to assess fall risk, very little consideration has been given to the level of ecological validity required. This paper directly addresses this issue with discussion of evidence and lacunas related to task, personal and technological factors that should be addressed in order to exploit fully DTW paradigms as an ecological assessment tool.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it