MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391609456 · doi:10.36950/2024.2ciss081

The effect of single and dual task training on the intracortical inhibition in healthy young adults

2024· article· en· W4391609456 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Wälchli, Craig D. Tokuno, Benedikt Lauber, Wolfgang Taube

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Issues in Sport Science (CISS) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDual (grammatical number)Task (project management)PsychologyResponse inhibitionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMedicineCognitionArtEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The evidence for changes in intracortical inhibition when executing two tasks simultaneously (i.e., dual tasking) is ambiguous as decreased (Corp et al., 2014) and increased (Corp et al., 2016) inhibition were reported. One way to bring more light into this question is to tests the effect of a single task training (STT) and a dual task training (DTT) on the short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) during a single balancing task and two different dual tasks in healthy young adults. Methods Twenty-nine healthy young adults were randomly separated into two groups participating in STT (n = 15) or DTT (n = 14) consisting of 6 training sessions within 3 weeks. Before and after the training, a single task (balancing on a rocker board) was performed at two resistance levels (easy and hard). Additionally to the single task, either a cognitive (2-back number recall) or a motor (balancing a ball on a hand-held tray) dual task was executed simultaneously. During execution of these three tasks, SICI was measured with transcranial magnetic stimulation over the motor cortical area representing the right tibialis anterior. Results Training improvements in balance performance were group and task-specific over time (p = .018). While the STT group improved more in the single balance task (12.3% vs. 6.6% DTT), the DTT group had more sway reductions in the motor dual task condition (13.7% vs. 4.5% STT). Similar statistical outcome (p = .034) was observed for the dual task costs (DTC). There was a tendence for SICI (p = .075), mainly indicating higher increase in SICI for the DTT group in the motor dual task (16.0% vs. 5.8% STT). During the execution of the single balance task, the group-specific adaptations in SICI were less pronounced (13.7% DTT vs. 16.2% STT). When analyzing the SICI dual task difference (Δ) from single to dual task, SICI is altered group and task specific (p = .011). The DTT group could increase the dual task difference in SICI in the dual motor condition (Δ 3.2%), whereas the STT group had a decrease (Δ -9.6%). Discussion/Conclusion The results of this study show that DTT causes gains in balance performance and increases in SICI when the secondary task is also a motor task, but not when the second task is a cognitive one. STT is particularly beneficial in the single task. It is therefore assumed that intracortical inhibition is important during the simultaneous performance of two motor tasks, while intracortical inhibition was not modulated in a group-specific manner by the additional cognitive task. References Corp, D. T., Lum, J. A. G., Tooley, G. A., & Pearce, A. J. (2014). Corticospinal activity during dual tasking: A systematic review and meta-analysis of TMS literature from 1995 to 2013. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 43, 74-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.03.017 Corp, D. T., Rogers, M. A., Youssef, G. J., & Pearce, A. J. (2016). The effect of dual-task difficulty on the inhibition of the motor cortex. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 443-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4479-2

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.393 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Issues in Sport Science (CISS)Same topicOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207