Attentional requirements of walking according to the gait phase and onset of auditory stimuli.

A dual-task paradigm was used to examine the influence of an attention demanding cognitive task on each phase of gait. Twenty-three participants (aged 18-27) walked on a treadmill at a 20% increase of their self-selected speed, either alone or while performing a cognitive task. Muscle activity was measured with electromyography (iEMG) for eight muscles of the dominant leg. The cognitive task consisted of subtracting one (EASY) or seven (HARD) from orally presented numbers. Reaction time (RT) and accuracy were recorded. iEMG events were selected according to stimulus onset (0-150 ms, 150-300 ms and 300-450 ms) prior to phases of gait (double-leg stance, single-leg stance and swing). There was a decrease in iEMG amplitude of fibularis longus (p=.013) and a trend in the same direction for vastus lateralis (p=.065) while walking and performing the cognitive task. When stimulus onset was considered, iEMG of medial gastrocnemius (p=.021) and lateral gastrocnemius (p=.004) were reduced during single-leg stance, when stimuli occurred between 300 and 450 ms prior to this phase. Cognitive performance was affected by task difficulty (RT, accuracy) and by dual-task load (RT). Dual-task costs were observed in both the motor and the cognitive tasks, suggesting that walking requires attention. There was a specific moment (300 ms after stimulus onset) during single-leg stance when dual-task costs were most pronounced, corroborating supraspinal involvement in the control of normal walking. Time-based approaches should be considered when analyzing attentional demands of a dynamic task such as gait.

Control of attention by a peripheral visual cue depends on whether the target is difficult to discriminate.

The influence of a peripheral cue represented by a gray ring on responsivity to a subsequent target varies. When a vertical line inside a ring was a go target and a white small ring inside a ring was a no-go target, reaction time was shorter at the same location relative to a different location. However, no reaction time difference between the two locations occurred when a white cross inside the ring, instead of the white vertical line inside the ring, was the go target. We investigated whether this last finding was due to a forward masking influence of the cue, a requirement of low attention for the discrimination or a lack of attention mobilization by the cue. In Experiment 1, the intensity of the cue was reduced in an attempt to reduce forward masking. In Experiment 2, the vertical line and the cross were presented in the same block of trials so as to be dealt with a common attentional strategy. In Experiments 3 and 4, the no-go target was a 45 masculine rotated cross inside a ring to increase the difficulty of the discrimination. No evidence was obtained that the cross was forward masked by the cue nor that it demanded less attention to be discriminated from the small ring. There was a facilitation of responsivity by the cue when the small ring was replaced by the rotated cross. The results suggest that when the discrimination to be performed is too easy the cue does not mobilize attention.

Control of attention by a peripheral visual cue depends on whether the target is difficult to discriminate

The influence of a peripheral cue represented by a gray ring on responsivity to a subsequent target varies. When a vertical line inside a ring was a go target and a white small ring inside a ring was a no-go target, reaction time was shorter at the same location relative to a different location. However, no reaction time difference between the two locations occurred when a white cross inside the ring, instead of the white vertical line inside the ring, was the go target. We investigated whether this last finding was due to a forward masking influence of the cue, a requirement of low attention for the discrimination or a lack of attention mobilization by the cue. In Experiment 1, the intensity of the cue was reduced in an attempt to reduce forward masking. In Experiment 2, the vertical line and the cross were presented in the same block of trials so as to be dealt with a common attentional strategy. In Experiments 3 and 4, the no-go target was a 45° rotated cross inside a ring to increase the difficulty of the discrimination. No evidence was obtained that the cross was forward masked by the cue nor that it demanded less attention to be discriminated from the small ring. There was a facilitation of responsivity by the cue when the small ring was replaced by the rotated cross. The results suggest that when the discrimination to be performed is too easy the cue does not mobilize attention.