An fNIRS Investigation of Discrete and Continuous Cognitive Demands During Dual-Task Walking in Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Dual-task studies have demonstrated that walking is attention-demanding for younger adults. However, numerous studies have attributed this to task type rather than the amount of required to accomplish the task. This study examined four tasks: two discrete (i.e., short intervals of attention) and two continuous (i.e., sustained attention) to determine whether greater attentional demands result in greater dual-task costs due to an overloaded processing capacity. Methods: Nineteen young adults (21.5 ± 3.6 years, 13 females) completed simple reaction time (SRT) and go/no-go (GNG) discrete cognitive tasks and n-back (NBK) and double number sequence (DNS) continuous cognitive tasks with or without self-paced walking. Prefrontal cerebral hemodynamics were measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) and performance was measured using response time, accuracy, and gait speed. Results: Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed decreased accuracy with increasing cognitive demands (p = 0.001) and increased dual-task accuracy costs (p < 0.001). Response times were faster during the single compared to dual-tasks during the SRT (p = 0.005) and NBK (p = 0.004). DNS gait speed was also slower in the dual compared to single task (p < 0.001). Neural findings revealed marginally significant interactions between dual-task walking and walking alone in the DNS (p = 0.06) and dual -task walking compared to the NBK cognitive task alone (p = 0.05). Conclusion: Neural findings suggest a trend towards increased PFC activation during continuous tasks. Cognitive and motor measures revealed worse performance during the discrete compared to continuous tasks. Future studies should consider examining different attentional demands of motor tasks.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".