Dual-Task Exercise Reduces Cognitive-Motor Interference in Walking and Falls After Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose- Functional community ambulation requires the ability to perform mobility and cognitive task simultaneously (dual-tasking). This single-blinded randomized controlled study aimed to examine the effects of dual-task exercise in chronic stroke patients. Methods- Eighty-four chronic stroke patients (24 women; age, 61.2±6.4 years; time since stroke onset, 75.3±64.9 months) with mild to moderate motor impairment (Chedoke-McMaster leg motor score: median, 5; interquartile range, 4-6) were randomly allocated to the dual-task balance/mobility training group, single-task balance/mobility group, or upper-limb exercise (control) group. Each group exercised for three 60-minute sessions per week for 8 weeks. The dual-task interference effect was measured for the time to completion of 3 mobility tests (forward walking, timed-up-and-go, and obstacle crossing) and for the correct response rate during serial-3-subtractions and verbal fluency task. Secondary outcomes included the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale, Frenchay Activities Index, and Stroke-specific Quality of Life Scale. The above outcomes were measured at baseline, immediately after, and 8 weeks after training. Fall incidence was recorded for a 6-month period posttraining. Results- Only the dual-task group exhibited reduced dual-task interference in walking time posttraining (forward walking combined with verbal fluency [9.5%, P=0.014], forward walking with serial-3-subtractions [9.6%, P=0.035], and the timed-up-and-go with verbal fluency [16.8%, P=0.001]). The improvements in dual-task walking were largely maintained at the 8-week follow-up. The dual-task cognitive performance showed no significant changes. The dual-task program reduced the risk of falls and injurious falls by 25.0% (95% CI, 3.1%-46.9%; P=0.037) and 22.2% (95% CI, 4.0%-38.4%; P=0.023), respectively, during the 6-month follow-up period compared with controls. There was no significant effect on other secondary outcomes ( P>0.05). Conclusions- The dual-task program was effective in improving dual-task mobility, reducing falls and fall-related injuries in ambulatory chronic stroke patients with intact cognition. It had no significant effect on activity participation or quality of life. Clinical trial registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02270398.
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".