Ankle-foot orthoses improve walking but do not reduce dual-task costs after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive-motor interference, as measured by dual-task walking (performing a mental task while walking), affects many clinical populations. Ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) are lower-leg splints prescribed to provide stability to the foot and ankle, as well as prevent foot drop, a gait deficit common after stroke. AFO use has been shown to improve gait parameters such as speed and step time, which are often negatively impacted by dual-task walking. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to establish whether AFOs could protect against cognitive-motor interference, as measured by dual-task walking, following post-stroke hemiplegia. METHODS: A total of 21 individuals with post-stroke hemiplegia that use an AFO completed a dual-task walking paradigm in the form of a 2 (walking with vs. without a concurrent cognitive task) by 2 (walking with vs. without an AFO) repeated-measures design. Changes to both motor and cognitive performance were analyzed. RESULTS: The results suggest that the use of an AFO improves gait overall in both single- and dual-task walking, particularly with respect to stride regularity, but there were no interactions to suggest that AFOs reduce the cognitive-motor dual-task costs themselves. A lack of differences in cognitive performance during dual-task walking with and without the AFO suggests that the AFO's benefit to motor performance cannot be attributed to task prioritization. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of AFOs to improve certain gait parameters for post-stroke hemiplegia, but AFOs do not appear to protect against cognitive-motor interference during dual-task walking. Future research should pursue alternate therapeutics for ameliorating task-specific declines under cognitively demanding circumstances.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".