WHAT CAN DUAL-TASK WALKING AND TAPPING TELL US ABOUT SUBJECTIVE COGNITIVE DECLINE? AN FNIRS STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Older adults who pass standard cognitive tests but report subjective cognitive decline (SCD) may be identifying early changes in cognition at a stage when intervening can prevent further declines. Changes may be subtle highlighting the need for novel approaches, such as divided attention tasks, to distinguish between those with and without SCD. This pilot study examined 15 older women (9 SCD, 6 non-SCD) completing dual-task walking and tapping. Brain (cerebral oxygenation) and behavioural (gait and tap speed, accuracy, and vocal response) measures were assessed during single and dual-tasks. Older adults with SCD were marginally less accurate during dual-task tapping (p < .06) and had greater cerebral oxygenation than the non-SCD group (p = .01). SCD did not moderate gait speed from single to dual-task while non-SCD did (p = .02). Findings suggest that challenging dual-task paradigms may help identify different behavioural and brain activity markers of SCD and intervention targets.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".