Perturbation-based dual task assessment in older adults with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Dual tasking (i.e., concurrent performance of motor and cognitive task) is significantly impaired in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (OAwMCI) compared to cognitively intact older adults (CIOA) and has been associated with increased fall risk. Dual task studies have primarily examined volitionally driven events, and the effects of mild cognitive impairment on reactive balance control (i.e., the ability to recover from unexpected balance threats) are unexplored. We examined the effect of cognitive tasks on reactive balance control in OAwMCI compared to CIOA. Methods Adults >55 years were included and completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) to categorize them as OAwMCI (MoCA: 18–24, n = 15) or CIOA (MoCA: ≥25, n = 15). Both OAwMCI [MoCA: 22.4 (2.2), 65.4 (6.1) years, 3 females] and CIOA [MoCA: 28.4 (1.3), 68.2 (5.5) years, 10 females] responded to large magnitude stance slip-like perturbations alone (single task) and while performing perceptual cognitive tasks targeting the visuomotor domain (target and tracking game). In these tasks, participants rotated their head horizontally to control a motion mouse and catch a falling target (target game) or track a moving object (track). Margin of stability (MOS) and fall outcome (harness load cell >30% body weight) were used to quantify reactive balance control. Cognitive performance was determined using performance error (target) and sum of errors (tracking). A 3 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA examined the effect of group and task on MOS, and generalized estimating equations (GEE) model was used to determine changes in fall outcome between groups and tasks. 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVAs examined the effect of group and task on cognitive performance. Results Compared to CIOA, OAwMCI exhibited significantly deteriorated MOS and greater number of falls during both single task and dual task ( p < 0.05), and lower dual task tracking performance ( p < 0.01). Compared to single task, both OAwMCI and CIOA exhibited significantly deteriorated perceptual cognitive performance during dual task ( p < 0.05); however, no change in MOS or fall outcome between single task and dual task was observed. Conclusion Cognitive impairment may diminish the ability to compensate and provide attentional resources demanded by sensory systems to integrate perturbation specific information, resulting in deteriorated ability to recover balance control among OAwMCI.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".