Unraveling the Cognitive-Motor Interaction in Individuals With Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine whether increasing the contribution of executive functions worsens dual-task performance in individuals with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). METHODS: Fourteen individuals with aMCI (mean [SD]: 74 [4] years) and 19 control adults (71 [5] years) recalled a list of letters in the order of presentation (SPAN-O) or in alphabetic order (SPAN-A) while ascending or descending a 3-step staircase. Dual-task cost (DTC) represented the average decrement of motor and cognitive performances during dual tasks, with greater DTC indicating worse performance. RESULTS: SPAN-A (P < 0.001) and stair descent (P = 0.023) increased the DTC in both groups compared with SPAN-O and stair ascent. Furthermore, individuals with aMCI had a greater DTC (93.4 [41.2]%) than the control group (48.3 [27.9]%) for SPAN-A (P < 0.001). Dual-task cost was also greater in descent (76.6 [42.1]%) than ascent (64.0 [34.5]%) in individuals with aMCI (P = 0.024) but not in the control group (P = 0.99). Significant negative partial correlations (β < -0.39; P < 0.05) were found between Montreal Cognitive Assessment score and DTC, while controlling for age and physical function. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A greater DTC in individuals with aMCI when the cognitive task requires working memory (SPAN-A) or during complex locomotor task (descent) suggests that aMCI impedes the capacity to perform 2 tasks simultaneously when higher-order cognitive processes are challenged. Furthermore, a greater DTC in our dual-task situations appears to reflect cognitive decline, as assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score. Overall, this study indicates that increasing the contribution of executive functions worsens the cognitive-motor interaction in individuals with aMCI.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1 available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A375).
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) | 0.000 | 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".