Standing Balance Strategies and Dual-Task Interference Are Differentially Modulated Across Various Sensory Contexts and Cognitive Tests in Individuals With Chronic Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Mental tracking and verbal fluency tests have been linked to poor mobility and falls; however, no studies have examined the influence of imposing these tests on standing balance post-stroke. The purpose of this study was to investigate standing balance and cognitive performance across sensory conditions and cognitive tests post-stroke. METHODS: Ninety-two participants with chronic stroke stood on dual-force platforms while performing various sensory conditions (eyes open/fixed surface, eyes closed/fixed surface, eyes open/sway-referenced surface, and eyes closed/sway-referenced surface) and cognitive tests (no cognitive test, serial subtractions, and verbal fluency). Equilibrium scores were computed based on the anterior-posterior sway angle. The number of correct verbal responses was recorded. RESULTS: Performing serial subtractions during eyes closed/sway-referenced surface revealed the highest equilibrium score (64.0 ± 13.5), followed by the same sensory condition with added verbal fluency test (59.6 ± 15.1), followed by the single-task condition with no cognitive test (52.6 ± 20.9). The number of correct serial subtractions between seated (7.7 ± 3.7) and standing (7.2 ± 3.5) conditions was similar. A trend for more correct verbal fluency responses emerged when seated (8.1 ± 2.9) than the eyes open/sway-referenced surface condition (7.5 ± 2.8). Greater correct verbal fluency responses emerged when seated (8.6 ± 3.1) than the eyes closed/sway-referenced surface condition (7.8 ± 2.7). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Standing balance enhancement (higher equilibrium score/better balance) depends on the neuropsychological process targeted and the sensory input available post-stroke. Cognitive dual-task interference emerged for the verbal fluency test during the most attention demanding sensory condition. Cognitive tests that enhance standing balance should be considered in assessments and interventions to evaluate and improve dual-tasking post-stroke.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A321).
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) | 0.001 | 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".