MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2576649080 · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00688

Does Combined Physical and Cognitive Training Improve Dual-Task Balance and Gait Outcomes in Sedentary Older Adults?

2017· article· en· W2576649080 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah Fraser, Karen Li, Nicolas Berryman, Laurence Desjardins-Crépeau, Maxime Lussier, Kiran K. Vadaga, Lora Lehr, Thien Tuong Minh Vu, Laurent Bosquet, Louis Bherer

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Human Neuroscience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de MontréalBishop's UniversityConcordia UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBalance (ability)CognitionCognitive trainingGaitTask (project management)PsychologyPhysical therapyAerobic exercisePreferred walking speedElementary cognitive taskTest (biology)Motor learningMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Everyday activities like walking and talking can put an older adult at risk for a fall if they have difficulty dividing their attention between motor and cognitive tasks. Training studies have demonstrated that both cognitive and physical training regimens can improve motor and cognitive task performance. Few studies have examined the benefits of combined training (cognitive and physical) and whether or not this type of combined training would transfer to walking or balancing dual-tasks. This study examines the dual-task benefits of combined training in a sample of sedentary older adults. Seventy-two older adults (> 60 years) were randomly assigned to one of four training groups: Aerobic+Cognitive training (CT), Aerobic+Computer lessons (CL), Stretch+CT and Stretch+CL. It was expected that the Aerobic+CT group would demonstrate the largest benefits and that the active placebo control (Stretch+CL) would show the least benefits after training. Walking and standing balance were paired with an auditory n-back with two levels of difficulty (0- and 1-back). Dual-task walking and balance were assessed with: walk speed (m/s), cognitive accuracy (% correct) and several mediolateral sway measures for pre- to post-test improvements. All groups demonstrated improvements in walk speed from pre- (M = 1.33 m/s) to post-test (M = 1.42 m/s, p < .001) and in accuracy from pre- (M = 97.57%) to post-test (M = 98.57%, p = .005).They also increased their walk speed in the more difficult 1-back (M = 1.38 m/s) in comparison to the 0-back (M = 1.36 m/s, p < .001) but reduced their accuracy in the 1-back (M = 96.39%) in comparison to the 0-back (M = 99.92%, p < .001). Three out of the five mediolateral sway variables (Peak, SD, RMS) demonstrated significant reductions in sway from pre to post test (p-values < .05). With the exception of a group difference between Aerobic+CT and Stretch+CT in accuracy, there were no significant group differences after training. Results suggest that there can be dual-task benefits from training but that in this sedentary sample Aerobic+CT training was not more beneficial than other types of combined training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Human NeuroscienceSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207