Cognitive-Locomotor Dual-Task Interference in Stroke Survivors and the Influence of the Tasks: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Walking in the community can be challenging for stroke survivors. The fact that community walking often requires performing another task while walking further adds to this challenge and can lead to a deterioration of performance in one or both tasks. Objective: To review the existing literature about cognitive-locomotor dual-task interference (DTI) magnitude and pattern while walking in patients with stroke and to explore the influence of tasks’ nature on DTI. Moreover, this review investigated the differences in DTI between stroke survivors and age-matched healthy adults. Methods: The literature search was conducted in 4 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and PEDro). Two authors independently identified relevant studies based on predetermined selection criteria. Among these criteria, studies had to include both locomotor and cognitive DTI. Methodological quality of the studies was independently assessed by two raters using a standardized checklist. Studies were categorized according to the nature of the locomotor and the cognitive tasks. Results: A total of twenty studies, with good to high methodological quality, were selected. Task combinations, outcome measures and participants characteristics varied widely from one study to another. Despite heterogeneous results across studies, mutual DTI (decrements in both locomotor and cognitive performance) was the most frequently observed pattern in participants with stroke. Interestingly, this DTI pattern was systematically obtained when participants had to avoid obstacles while walking. DTI seemed also to be influenced by the nature of the cognitive task. Compared to age-matched healthy participants, stroke survivors had greater DTI. Mutual interferences were also more frequently observed in stroke survivors than in age-matched healthy adults. Conclusions: DTI magnitude and pattern in persons with stroke varied considerably across studies. Multiple factors, including nature of the tasks, may influence dual-task abilities when assessing individuals with stroke. Consequently, dual-task assessments should be performed in similar contexts of individuals’ daily lives to ensure ecological validity.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".