Back

How increased cognitive load affects the dual-task cost in healthy young adults? A randomized, double-blind sham-controlled study

Behrangrad, S.; Mansouri, F.; Zoghi, M.; Jaberzadeh, S.

2021-11-23 neuroscience
10.1101/2021.11.23.469768 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Our ability to interact flexibly with the surrounding environment and achieve an adaptive goal-directed response is one of the necessities of balance control. This study aimed to examine the interaction between cognitive demand and the necessity for keeping balance in unstable conditions. We examined the effects of performing two cognitive tasks, namely the Stroop test and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), on postural balance in healthy young adults. Stroop and the WCST test assess selective attention and cognitive flexibility in shifting between rules, respectively. Thirty-two healthy adults were included in two experimental conditions (control and treatment) in random order, separated by at least seven days. Standing balance was evaluated by the Sway Medical Mobile application in eyes open (EO) and eyes closed (EC) in different stance positions: feet apart, feet together, semi-tandem, tandem, and single-leg stance (SLS). Balance was evaluated before and after the cognitive test in each experimental condition. Our findings indicate that performing cognitively demanding tasks adversely affected the balance ability in more demanding balance tests such as the SLS with EC (P {square} 0.05). However, no significant changes were seen in other balance tests (P {square} 0.05). Additionally, no significant changes were seen in balance ability after the Stroop or Wisconsin card sorting test alone. These results confirm that performing cognitively demanding tasks significantly reduced the ability to keep balance in less stable conditions. These findings have significant implications in understanding and preventing falls and incidents resulting from an impaired balance in complex and cognitively demanding conditions.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.1%
2
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.1%
3
Human Movement Science
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.0%
4
Experimental Brain Research
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
67 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.2%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.2%
7
Gait & Posture
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
8
Frontiers in Sports and Active Living
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
9
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
10
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
11
Neuroscience
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
12
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
13
Frontiers in Psychology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
14
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.3%
15
IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering
40 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
16
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
17
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
18
Behavioural Brain Research
70 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.9%
19
The Cerebellum
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
20
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
21
Journal of Biomechanics
57 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
22
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
Experimental Physiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
24
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
25
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%