Cognitive dual-task cost depends on the complexity of the cognitive task, but not on age and disease.

Introduction: Dual-tasking (DT) while walking is common in daily life and can affect both gait and cognitive performance depending on age, attention prioritization, task complexity and medical condition. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of DT on cognitive DT cost (DTC) (i) in a dataset including participants of different age groups, with different neurological disorders and chronic low-back pain (cLBP) (ii) at different levels of cognitive task complexity, and (iii) in the context of a setting relevant to daily life, such as combined straight walking and turning. Materials and methods: Ninety-one participants including healthy younger and older participants and patients with Parkinson's disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and cLBP performed a simple reaction time (SRT) task and three numerical Stroop tasks under the conditions congruent (StC), neutral (StN) and incongruent (StI). The tasks were performed both standing (single task, ST) and walking (DT), and DTC was calculated. Mixed ANOVAs were used to determine the effect of group and task complexity on cognitive DTC. Results: A longer response time in DT than in ST was observed during SRT. However, the response time was shorter in DT during StI. DTC decreased with increasing complexity of the cognitive task. There was no significant effect of age and group on cognitive DTC. Conclusion: Our results suggest that regardless of age and disease group, simple cognitive tasks show the largest and most stable cognitive effects during DT. This may be relevant to the design of future observational studies, clinical trials and for clinical routine.

Long-term unsupervised mobility assessment in movement disorders.

Mobile health technologies (wearable, portable, body-fixed sensors, or domestic-integrated devices) that quantify mobility in unsupervised, daily living environments are emerging as complementary clinical assessments. Data collected in these ecologically valid, patient-relevant settings can overcome limitations of conventional clinical assessments, as they capture fluctuating and rare events. These data could support clinical decision making and could also serve as outcomes in clinical trials. However, studies that directly compared assessments made in unsupervised and supervised (eg, in the laboratory or hospital) settings point to large disparities, even in the same parameters of mobility. These differences appear to be affected by psychological, physiological, cognitive, environmental, and technical factors, and by the types of mobilities and diagnoses assessed. To facilitate the successful adaptation of the unsupervised assessment of mobility into clinical practice and clinical trials, clinicians and researchers should consider these disparities and the multiple factors that contribute to them.