Perceived workload vs. objective performance during dual-tasking in adults with mild cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Older adults with mild cognitive impairment (OAwMCI) demonstrate reactive balance deficits (impaired responses to external perturbations) compared to cognitively intact older adults (CIOA), which are exacerbated while performing a cognitive task (i.e., dual-tasking). However, it is unknown if these cognitive-motor deficits (which could significantly increase fall risk) can even be perceived by OAwMCI. Thus, this study examined if objective performance during dual-task reactive balance control (cognitive errors, reactive center of mass (COM) stability) was associated with subjective workload in OAwMCI and CIOA. 34 OAwMCI (Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): 18-25) and 35 CIOA (MoCA ≥26) were exposed to a support surface perturbation while performing a visuomotor “Target” task, which involved rotating their head to catch virtual objects. This task was also completed while seated (single-task). Participants rated their perceived workload (0-100) on the NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) in six domains (mental, physical, temporal, performance, effort, frustration). OAwMCI reported lower mental demand, effort, and frustration than CIOA in single and dual-task (p < 0.05), although had higher cognitive errors and lower reactive COM stability (p < 0.05). Both groups reported higher workload in dual vs. single-task (p < 0.05). NASA-TLX scores were not correlated with objective performance in OAwMCI (p > 0.05), although were significantly correlated with cognitive errors and reactive COM stability in CIOA (Pearson’s r: 0.3-0.5). These results suggest that OAwMCI may not be able to accurately perceive the cognitive-motor demands of challenging conditions. This impaired perception could affect the execution or scaling of reactive balance responses and contribute to increased fall risk, especially in dual task conditions.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".