Alterations in dual-task walking persist two months after mild traumatic brain injury in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To compare dual-task performance involving different cognitive-locomotor combinations between healthy controls and participants with sub-acute mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and to correlate dual-task performances to history of prior head injuries. Methods Eighteen participants having recently sustained mTBI and 15 controls performed nine dual-tasks combining locomotor (level-walking, narrow obstacle, deep obstacle) and cognitive (Stroop task, Verbal fluency, Counting backwards) tasks. Previous history of concussion was also investigated. Results Slower gait speeds were observed in the mTBI group compared to controls during both single and dual-tasks. Longer response times to cognitive tasks in the mTBI group further suggested the presence of residual impairments two months following injury. No combination of dual-task was more sensitive. Correlations were observed between history of mTBI and several measures of dual-task performance, underlying the need to further consider the effects of multiple injuries in relation to dual-task walking. Conclusion Dual-tasks using simultaneously locomotor and cognitive functions represent an ecological way for clinicians to detect residual, but subtle, alterations post-mTBI. History of previous mTBI needs to be considered as a personal characteristic which may influence dual-task walking performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".