Data_Sheet_1_The Performance Index Identifies Changes Across the Dual Task Timed Up and Go Test Phases and Impacts Task-Cost Estimation in the Oldest-Old.docx
Introduction: Dual tasking is common in activities of daily living (ADLs) and the ability to perform them usually declines with age. While cognitive aspects influence dual task (DT) performance, most DT-cost (DT-C) related metrics include only time- or speed- delta without weighting the accuracy of cognitive replies involved in the task.
Objectives: The primary study goal was to weight the accuracy of cognitive replies as a contributing factor when estimating DT-C using a new index of DT-C that considers the accuracy of cognitive replies (P-index) in the instrumented timed up and go test (iTUG). Secondarily, to correlate the novel P-index with domains of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
Methods: Sixty-three participants (≥85 years old) took part in this study. The single task (ST) and DT iTUG tests were performed in a semi-random order. Both the time taken to complete the task measured utilizing an inertial measurement unit (IMU), and the accuracy of the cognitive replies were used to create the novel P-index. Clinical and sociodemographic data were collected.
Results: The accuracy of the cognitive replies changed across the iTUG phases, particularly between the walk 1 and walk 2 phases. Moreover, weighting 0.6 for delta-time (W1) and 0.4 for cognitive replies (W2) into the P-index enhanced the prediction of the MMSE score. The novel P-index was able to explain 37% of the scores obtained by the fallers in the “spatial orientation” and “attention” domains of the MMSE. The ability of the P-index to predict MMSE scores was not significantly influenced by age, schooling, and number of medicines in use. The Bland-Altman analysis indicated a substantial difference between the time-delta-based DT-C and P-index methods, which was within the limits of agreement.
Conclusions: The P-index incorporates the accuracy of cognitive replies when calculating the DT-C and better reflects the variance of the MMSE in comparison with the traditional time- or speed-delta approaches, thus providing an improved method to estimate the DT-C.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.21203/rs.2.10381/v1
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.008
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.02.009
- https://doi.org//10.1111/ggi.13439
- https://doi.org//10.1590/S1809-29502008000400010
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neucli.2018.10.003c
- https://doi.org//10.1159/000127318
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fpsyg.2020.581225
- https://doi.org//10.1080/03610730802070068
- https://doi.org//10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51468.x
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00391-014-0845-0
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.archger.2017.12.003
- https://doi.org//10.3390/ijerph17051715
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.gaitpost.2005.10.002
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.gaitpost.2018.08.020
- https://doi.org//10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02736.x
- https://doi.org//10.1186/1744-9081-6-59
- https://doi.org//10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e89905
- https://doi.org//10.2147/CIA.S198697
- https://doi.org//10.1590/1809-9823.2015.13180
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fphys.2020.0054
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s40520-019-01210-w
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.exger.2020.111164
- https://doi.org//10.3390/e21010070
- https://doi.org//10.31887/dcns.2019.21.3/pharvey
- https://doi.org//10.1159/000314963
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fnagi.2018.00228
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.06.019
- https://doi.org//10.3390/s18041275
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.exger.2020.110948
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12877-018-0894-0
- https://doi.org//10.1519/JPT.0000000000000133
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbmt.2017.07.006
- https://doi.org//10.1590/s1980-57642010dn40100006
- https://doi.org//10.1080/13825585.2011.628375
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.apmr.2011.12.007
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.01.018
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.028
- https://doi.org//10.1111/jgs.15774
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.10.039
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.12.016
- https://doi.org//10.4081/ni.2018
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s40520-015-0372-x
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0226827
- https://doi.org//10.1037/xge0000539
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s10339-014-0628-y
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.06.013
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.001
- https://doi.org//10.1136/bjsports-2016-096547
- https://doi.org//10.1589/jpts.27.1779
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03429.x
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ptj/80.12.1174
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.exger.2019.02.015
- https://doi.org//10.1007/bf03325161
- https://doi.org//10.1519/JPT.0000000000000194
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.007
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.01.045
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fneur.2018.00684
- https://doi.org//10.18857/jkpt.2017.29.6.303
- https://doi.org//10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022157
- https://doi.org//10.1002/mds.24963
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0188184
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s10072-019-04125-6
CC BY 4.0