Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Included studies with fallers

From: A taxonomy of cognitive tasks to evaluate cognitive-motor interference on spatiotemoporal gait parameters in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AuthorTitleStudy designStudy aimsNo. of subjectsAge (yr)Dual-task type
Auvinet et al., 2017 [74]Gait disorders in the elderly and dual task gait analysisProspec-tive cohort study1. To assess the value of gait instability as a clinical symptom,2. To quantify gait disorders by means of the DTC in order to differentiate between peripheral pathologies and central nervous system pathologies,3. To identify motor phenotypes according to the DTC for stride frequency and gait regularity4. To identify correlations between these motor phenotypes and conventional brain MRI findings.Overall (n = 103), Gait instability (n = 46), Recurrent falls (N = 30), Memory impairment (n = 19), Cautious Gait (n = 8)Falls assessment of previous falls in the last 12 monthsOverall (76 ± 7), Gait instability (77 ± 8), Recurrent falls (77 ± 8), Memory impairment (76 ± 5), Cautious Gait (81 ± 5)Arithmetic DT:Walking + counting aloud backwards from 50 subtracting serial 1 s (one by one)SR: auditory-verbal
Bauer et al., 2010 [75]First Results of Evaluation of a Falls ClinicCross-sectional studyTo assess risk factors for falls in community dwelling older people and to recommend targeted interventionsFallers (n = 42)Non-fallers (n = 19)Previous falls in the last 12 months were assessed by questionnaireFallers (75.95)Non-fallers (75.35)No SD reportedArithmetic DT:1. Walking+ counting backwards from 50 subtracting serial 1 s (one by one)2. walking + subtracting serial 3 s from 100Verbal fluency task:Walking + naming animalsSR: auditory verbal
Beauchet et al., 2008 [19]Recurrent falls and dual task-related decrease in walking speed: is there a relationship?Prospec-tive cohort studyTo determine whether DT–related changes in walking speed were associated with recurrent falls in frail older peopleFallers (n = 37) vs Non-Fallers (n = 156) vs Recurrent fallers (n = 20)Falls assessment of previous falls in the last 12 monthsFallers (84.7 ± 5.1) vs Non-Fallers (83.9 ± 5.5) vs. Recurrent fallers (87.2 ± 5.7)Arithmetic DT:Walking + subtracting serial 1 s (one by one) from 50SR: auditory verbal
Bootsma-van der Wiel et al., 2003 [76]Walking and talking as predictors of falls in the general populationProspective population-based follow-up studyTo compare the added value of DT in predicting falling in the general population of oldest old with that of an easy-to-administer STNone (n = 22), One (n = 87), and Recurrent (n = 71)Previous falls in the last 12 months and the last month assessed by questionnaireLeiden 85-plus Study (no precise information)Verbal fluency task:Walking + reciting names of animals or professions during a 30-s periodSR: auditory verbal
Freire Junior et al., 2017 [21]The effects of a simultaneous cognitive or motor task on the kinematics of walking in older fallers and non-fallersCohort studyComparing kinematics of ST gait, cognitive DT gait, and motor DT gait in both older fallers and non-fallersNo Falls (n = 35) vs. One fall (n = 27)Previous falls in the last 6 months and the last month assessed by questionnaireNo Falls (67.97 ± 4.82) vs One fall (67.96 ± 5.7)1. Verbal fluency task:Walking + naming animalsSR: auditory verbal2. Secondary motor task:Walking + transferring a coin from one pocket to anotherSR: auditory-manual
Howcroft et al., 2016 [77]Analysis of dual-task elderly gait in fallers and non-fallers using wearable sensorsProspective population-based follow-up studyUse wearable sensors to detect gait differences between:(1) fallers and non-fallers for ST walking,(2) between fallers and non-fallers for DT walking,(3) ST and DT walking for fallers, and(4) ST and DT walking for non-fallers.Fallers (n = 24), Non-Fallers (n = 76)Previous falls in the last 6 months and the last month assessed by questionnaireFallers (76.3 ± 7,0),Non-Fallers (75,2 ± 6,6)Verbal fluency task:Walking + naming words starting with A, F or S)SR: auditory verbal
Johansson et al., 2016 [78]Greater Fall Risk in Elderly Women Than in Men Is Associated With Increased Gait Variability During MultitaskingProspective observational study1. investigate variability in gait patterns among men and women aged 70 years during progressively challenging gait conditions.2. investigate associations of gender with gait patterns and the risk of incident falls.Non-Fallers (1202), Fallers (148)Falls assessment of previous falls in the last six and 12 monthsFallers (70), Non. Fallers (70),Inclusion criteria: age of exactly 70 years at the time of testing.Arithmetic task:Walking + subtracting 1 s from the number 100SR: auditory verbal
Mirelman et al., 2012 [79]Executive function and falls in older adultsCohort study (Follow Up)(1) Evaluate if reduced Executive Function is a risk factor for future falls,(2) assess whether ST and DT walking abilities, an alternative window into EF, were associated with fall risk.256Participant recorded there falls in a falls calendar76.4 ± 4.5Arithmetic taskWalking + subtracting 3 s from a predefined 3 digit numberSR: auditory verbal
Muhaidat et al., 2013 [20]Exploring gait-related dual task tests in community-dwelling fallers and non-fallerPilot studyAssess differences in DT performance between the two groups on both primary and secondary tasks to help narrow down the potential choices of tasks, using simple clinical outcome measures that only require the use of a stopwatch, for future research.Fallers (n = 12), Non-Fallers (n = 15)Falls assessment of previous falls in the last 12 monthsFallers (75.5 (8.5 IQR),Non-Fallers 72 (4 IQR)Arithmetic tasks:1. Walking + subtracting 3 s2. Walking + subtracting 7 sVerbal fluency tasks:3. Walking + Generating words e starting with the letter I, N, or O4. Walking + Generating animal namesVisual spatial task:5. Walking + clock taskSR 1.-5.: auditory verbalSecondary motor task:6. Walking + carrying a cupSR: auditory- manualDiscrimination task:7. Walking + Stroop (high/ low; different pitches)SR: auditory verbal
Nordin et al., 2010 [80]Changes in step-width during dual-task walking predicts fallsCohort study (Follow Up)Evaluate whether gait pattern changes between single- and DT conditions were associated with risk of falling in older peopleFallers (n = 120), Non-Fallers (n = 110)Participant recorded there falls in a falls dairyNon-Fallers (78)Fallers (80)No SD available1. Secondary motor task:Walking + carrying a cup on a tray)SR: auditory-manual2. Verbal fluency task:Walking + naming animals3. Arithmetic task:Walking + subtracting 3 s from 50SR 2. +  3.: auditory verbal
Reelick et al., 2011 [81]Increased intra-individual variability in stride length and reaction time in recurrent older fallersCross-sectional studyTo compare mean performance measures as well as intra-individual variability measures of stride length and reaction time in vulnerable recurrent and non-recurrent older fallers.Non- fallers (n = 38), Recurrent fallers (n = 22)Falls assessment of previous falls in the last 6 monthsNon-recurrent Fallers (75.8 ± 7.2), recurrent Fallers (75.7 ± 5.6)1. Arithmetic taskWalking + subtracting 7 from 1002. Verbal fluency task:Walking + naming words starting with a certain letterSR: auditory verbal
Springer et al., 2006 [82]Dual-tasking effects on gait variability: The role of aging, falls, and executive functionCross-sectional studyTest if the DT effect on gait variability is larger1) in healthy older people vs healthy young people;2) in idiopathic older fallers vs healthy older people;3) and if DT has effects on gait variability are correlated with executive functionYA (n = 19), Non- fallers (n = 24), Fallers (n = 17)Falls assessment of previous falls in the last 6 monthsYA (29,4 ± 4,4),Non-Fallers (71.0 ± 5.9),Fallers (76.1 ± 4.8)1. Listening memory taskWalking + listening to a text; answering questions afterwardsSR: auditory verbal2. Arithmetic taskWalking + subtracting 7 from 500SR: auditory verbal
Toulotte et al., 2006a [83]Effects of training and detraining on the static and dynamic balance in elderly fallers and non-fallersPilot studyEvaluate the effects of training on static and dynamic balance in ST and DT conditions to analyze the effects of detraining on static and dynamic balance in healthy older fallers and non-fallers.Fallers (n = 8), Non-Fallers (n = 8)Falls assessment of previous falls in the last 24 monthsFallers (71.1 ± 5.0), Non-Fallers (68.4 ± 4.5)Secondary motor task:Walking + carrying a glassSR: auditory-manual
Toulotte et al., 2006b [84]Identification of healthy elderly fallers and non-fallers by gait analysis under dual-task conditionsCase comp-arison studyCompare healthy older fallers and non-fallers to identify balance disorders associated with falling under ST and DT conditionsFallers (n = 21), Non-Fallers (n = 19)Falls assessment of previous falls in the last 24 monthsFallers (70.43 ± 6.43), Non-Fallers (67.05 ± 4.81)Secondary motor task:Walking + carrying a glassSR: auditory-manual
Verghese et al., 2017 [85]Brain activation in high-functioning older adults and fallsProspective cohort studyTo determine whether brain activity over the prefrontal cortex measured in real time during walking predicts falls in high-functioning older people16671 fallers95 non-fallersFalls were prospectively ascertained over a 50-month period74.95 ± 6.07Letter memory task:Walking + reciting alternate lettersSR: auditory-manual
Yamada et al., 2011 [86]The reliability and preliminary validity of game-based fall risk assessment in community-dwelling older adultsRandomized controlled trialExamine whether the Nintendo Wii Fit program could be used for fall risk assessment in healthy, community-dwelling older peopleFaller (n = 16), Non-Fallers (n = 28)Previous falls in the last 12 months assessed by question-naireFallers (84.8 ± 10.1),Non-Fallers (80.2 ± 6.4)Arithmetic task:Walking + counting backwards from 50SR: auditory-manual
Asai et al. 2014 [87]Effects of dual-tasking on control of trunk movement during gait: respective effect of manual- and cognitive-taskCross-sectional study1. to assess the effects of a cognitive task and a manual task on trunk movements during gait.2. to examine the effect of FoF on trunk movement in both dual-task walking conditions: cognitive task and manual-task gaits.Overall (n = 117), nFoF (n = 85), FoF (n = 32)Previous falls in the last 12 months assessed by questionnaireFOF was assessed by one questionOverall (73.7 ± 4.0), nFoF (73.7 ± 4.0), FoF (74.5 ± 4.0)1. Arithmetic task:Walking + subtracting 1 s from 100SR: auditory-manual2. Secondary motor task:Walking + motor task carrying a ball on a traySR: auditory-manual
Donoghue et al., 2013 [88]Effects of fear of falling and activity restriction on normal and dual task walking in community dwelling older adultsProspective cohort study1. to examine the relationship between FOF, activity restriction and gait characteristics in normal and dual task walking and2. to determine if these relationships persist after adjusting for potentially underlying factorsNo FOF (n = 961), FOF-NAR (n = 250), FOF-AR (n = 96)FOF was assessed by one questionNo FOF (72.3 ± 5.6), FOF-NAR (74.9 ± 5.8), FOF-AR (73.9 ± 5.6)Verbal memory task:Walking + recite alternate letters of the alphabet (A-C-E, etc.)SR: auditory-manual
Reelick et al., 2009 [89]The influence of fear of falling on gait and balance in older peopleCross-sectional studyThe purpose of this study was to examine the association between FoF and gait and balance in older people during walking with and without dual-tasking.FoF (n = 29) vs NFOF (n = 65)FOF was assessed by the ABC-NL scaleFOF (80.6 ± 4.2) vs. NFOF (80.5 ± 3.7)Arithmetic task:Walking + subtracting 7 s from 100SR: auditory-manual
Wollesen et al., 2017 [90]Does dual task training improve walking performance of older adults with concern of falling?Single blind randomized controlled trialThe primary aim of this study was to compare the effects of a DT training integrating task managing strategies for independent living older people with and without concern about falling to a non-training control group on walking performance under ST and DT conditions.Intervention with FES-I < 20 (n = 26) vs Intervention with FES-I > 20 (n = 30) vs Control group with FES-I < 20 (n = 19) vs Control group with FES-I (n = 20)Intervention with FES-I < 20 (72.2 ± 4.6) vsIntervention with FES-I > 20 (69.8 ± 5.7) vsControl group with FES-I < 20 (72.9 ± 4.4) vsControl group with FES-I (72.7 ± 5.3)Discrimination task:Walking + Stroop task (colors)SR: visual-verbal
  1. Legend: SR Stimulus-reponse condition, YA Young adults, nFOF No fear of falling, FOF Fear of falling, FOF NAR=, ABC-NL Advanced balance scale Netherlands, FES-I Falls efficacy scale- international