Comparison of Dual Task Training Versus Aerobics Training in Improving Cognition in Healthy Elderly Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cognitive impairments, particularly in old age, are pervasive and occur because of both normal and pathological senescence. Engaging in some routine bodily activities combined with activities that stimulate cognitive skills appears beneficial in increasing cognitive resistance to degenerative processes of the brain. Dual-task training (DTT) by combining motor and cognitive activities causes improvement, particularly in executive function, working memory and divided attention, whereas aerobic exercise training (AET) plays an important role in improving executive function, attention, and memory. In this study, we attempted to compare the efficiency of DTT versus AT in improving cognitive function in healthy older individuals. Methods Forty healthy older adults between 60 and 70 years of age who met the inclusion criteria participated in this study. They were randomly split into two groups A and B. Group A (64.05±3.17 years) received DTT three times a week, whereas group B (65.50±3.44 years) received AT five times a week. Both training programs were conducted for six weeks. Cognitive function was assessed using Trail Making Test (TMT)-A, TMT-B, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The assessment was done at baseline (first day of intervention), on completion of the third week, and again at the end of the training session i.e., the sixth week. The Chi-square test and the student's paired and unpaired t-tests were used for statistical analysis with a level of significance P<0.05. Discussion and result Betterment in cognitive functions was evident after six weeks of DTT and AET. Post-intervention improvements were noted in TMT-A, TMT-B, and MoCA scores in both groups A and B (P>0.0001). However, the difference between the pre and post-intervention scores was greater for group A compared to group B indicative of remarkable improvements in cognitive function in group A. Conclusion The current study demonstrated that both DTT and AET are notably efficient in improving cognitive function in a healthy elderly population. However, in comparison, DTT was significantly more effective than AET (P<0.05). This shows that six weeks of DTT is effective in improving cognitive function and slowing age-associated cognitive decline in older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".