Executive function is necessary for the regulation of the stepping activity when stepping in place in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the effect of age on stepping performance and to compare the cognitive demand required to regulate repetitive stepping between older and younger adults while performing a stepping in place task (SIP). Fourteen younger (25.4 ± 6.5) and 15 older adults (71.0 ± 9.0) participated in this study. They performed a seated category fluency task and Stroop test, followed by a 60 s SIP task. Following this, both the cognitive and motor tasks were performed simultaneously. We assessed cognitive performance, SIP cycle duration, asymmetry, and arrhythmicity. Compared to younger adults, older adults had larger SIP arrhythmicity both as a single task and when combined with the Category (p < 0.001) and Stroop (p < 0.01) tasks. Older adults also had larger arrhythmicity when dual tasking compared to SIP alone (p < 0.001). Older adults showed greater SIP asymmetry when combined with Category (p = 0.006) and Stroop (p = 0.06) tasks. Finally, they had lower cognitive performance than younger adults in both single and dual tasks (p < 0.01). Age and type of cognitive task performed with the motor task affected different components of stepping. While SIP arrhythmicity was larger for all conditions in older compared to younger adults, cycle duration was not different, and asymmetry tended to be larger during SIP when paired with a verbal fluency task. SIP does not require a high level of control for dynamic stability, therefore demonstrating that higher-level executive function is necessary for the regulation of stepping activity independently of the regulation of postural balance. Furthermore, older adults may lack the cognitive resources needed to adequately regulate stepping activity while performing a cognitive task relying on the executive function.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".