Gait and Working Memory in Alzheimerâs Disease, Aging and Small Vessel Cerebrovascular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis first explored the effects of concurrent spatial attention and working memory task performance on over-ground gait in healthy young and older adults. It then compared over-ground gait parameters and working memory performance in mild Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and normal controls (NC) and investigated costs of dual-tasking on working memory performance and cadence during treadmill walking at preferred walking speed in the two groups. Furthermore, it explored these differences in AD and NC groups in relation to their subcortical hyperintensities (SH) that were rated using standardized scales on MRI. Reaction times and accuracy on working memory performance measures were collected under single and dual task conditions. Over-ground gait parameters were measured on an automated walkway. Costs of dual-tasking on gait parameters and working memory performance were measured at a constant velocity on a treadmill. The hypotheses that working memory influences gait performance and that a higher SH burden negatively influences over-ground gait and costs of dual-task conditions, were supported in a series of experiments. Gait slowed down while performing working memory and spatial attention tasks in young and older adults. Patients with mild AD, compared to NC, had a slower gait velocity, shorter stride length and lower cadence on the walkway. When the two groups were subdivided into higher and lower SH groups based on their median SH score, the NC group with lower SH burden walked significantly faster with a higher cadence and a longer stride length than the other three groups. Lastly, a higher SH burden negatively influenced working memory performance in NC while in mild AD patients, it had negative influences on adaptive changes in gait while dual-tasking. These results suggest that, in dual-task condition, SH interfere with processing speed in NC and on gait in AD. These findings provide new insights in to tradeoffs during dual tasking in relation to cerebrovascular disease. This has ecological implications because of the prevalence of small vessel disease in aging and dementia, may impact on predicting falls in AD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".