Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Motor−cognitive exercise with variability of practice and feedback improves functional ability and cognition in older individuals

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Motor−cognitive dual-task training seems the most favorable form of exercise for functional and cognitive improvements in older individuals.  The optimal exercise regime is still uncertain, and the potential benefits of qualitative parameters of exercise prescription such as feedback provision and practice variability are mostly unknown.

Aims

To verify the effects of a motor−cognitive dual-task training with feedback provision and variability of practice for improving functional ability and cognition in older individuals.

Methods

Thirty individuals (3 men) aged over 65 years were tested on walking speed, static and dynamic balance, lower limb strength, and cognition before and after a 5-week motor−cognitive intervention. Training consisted of twice weekly, 30 min gross−motor coordination exercises with variable practice conditions combined with stimulus–response cognitive tasks generated by an interactive device. Participants were divided into an experimental group and a control group, respectively receiving and nonreceiving feedback during training. A 2 × 2 ANOVA was used to verify the effects of training.

Results

Both groups improved static and dynamic balance (p < 0.05), walking speeds (p < 0.05), lower limb strength (p < 0.05) and cognitive functions with greater gains observed in the experimental group (p < 0.01).

Discussion

Variability of practice applied to motor−cognitive dual-task training is effective for improving, in only 5 weeks, functional ability and cognitive processing in older individuals. These changes were possibly afforded through motor and cognitive enhancement induced by exercise complexity. Provision of feedback seems to particularly benefit cognitive functions.

Conclusions

Brief motor−cognitive dual-task training using practice variability and feedback seems effective for counteracting the age-related cognitive and functional decline.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The authors have full control of all primary data and allow the journal to review our data if requested.

References

  1. Manini TM, Pahor M (2008) Physical activity and maintaining physical function in older adults. Br J Sports Med 43:28–31. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2008.053736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Izquierdo M, Merchant RA, Morley JE et al (2021) International Exercise Recommendations in Older Adults (ICFSR): Expert Consensus Guidelines. J Nutr Health Aging 25:824–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-021-1665-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu CJ, Latham NK (2009) Progressive resistance strength training for improving physical function in older adults. Cochr Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002759.pub2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. de Labra C, Guimaraes-Pinheiro C, Maseda A et al (2015) Effects of physical exercise interventions in frail older adults: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Geriat 15:154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0155-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bouaziz W, Lang PO, Schmitt E et al (2016) Health benefits of multicomponent training programmes in seniors: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract 70:520–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12822

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Varela-Vásquez LA, Minobes-Molina E, Jerez-Roig J (2020) Dual-task exercises in older adults: A structured review of current literature. J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls 5:31–37. https://doi.org/10.22540/JFSF-05-031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wollesen B, Voelcker-Rehage C (2014) Training effects on motor–cognitive dual-task performance in older adults A systematic review. Eur Rev Aging Phys Activity 11:5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11556-013-0122-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR et al (2011) Exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43:1334–1359. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Howe TE, Rochester L, Neil F et al (2011) Exercise for improving balance in older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004963.pub3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Herrod PJ, Blackwell JE, Boereboom CL et al (2020) The time course of physiological adaptations to high-intensity interval training in older adults. Aging Med 3:245–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/agm2.12127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brach JS, Van Swearingen JM, Perera S et al (2013) Motor learning versus standard walking exercise in older adults with subclinical gait dysfunction: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 61:1879–1886. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.12506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schmidt R, Lee DT (2005) Motor Control and Learning: A Behavioural Emphasis (4th Edition). Human Kinetics, Leeds, United Kingdom

  13. Lee TD (2012) Contextual interference: Generalizability and limitations. In: Hodges NJ, Williams AM (eds) Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice. Routledge, New York, pp 79–93

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pauwels L, Vancleef K, Swinnen SP et al (2015) Challenge to promote change: both young and older adults benefit from contextual interference. Front Aging Neurosci 7:157. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Carnahan H, Vandervoort AA, Swanson LR (1996) The influence of summary knowledge of results and aging on motor learning. Res Q Exerc Sport 67:280–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1996.10607955

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharma DA, Chevidikunnan MF, Khan FR et al (2016) Effectiveness of knowledge of result and knowledge of performance in the learning of a skilled motor activity by healthy young adults. J Phys Ther Sci 28:1482–1486. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.28.1482

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Weir-Mayta P, Spencer KA, Bierer SM et al (2019) Investigation of feedback schedules on speech motor learning in older adults. Int J Aging Res 2:33. https://doi.org/10.28933/ijoar-2019-03-2006

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lajoie Y (2003) Effect of computerized feedback postural training on posture and attentional demands in older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res 16:363–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rose DJ, Clark S (2000) Can the control of bodily orientation be significantly improved in a group of older adults with a history of falls? J Am Geriatr Soc 48:275–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb02646.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guadagnoli MA, Leis B, Van Gemmert AW et al (2002) The relationship between knowledge of results and motor learning in Parkinsonian patients. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 9:89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1353-8020(02)00007-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chiviacowsky S, Campos T, Domingues M (2010) Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances learning in persons with Parkinson’s disease. Front Psychol 16:226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nunes MES, Souza MGTX, Basso L et al (2014) Frequency of provision of knowledge of performance on skill acquisition in older persons. Front Psychol 5:1454. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nunes MES, Correa UC, Souza MGTX et al (2020) No improvement on the learning of golf putting by older persons with self-controlled knowledge of performance. J Aging Phys Act 27:300–308. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2018-0053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. de Haan T, van den Berg B, Woldorff MG et al (2021) Diminished feedback evaluation and knowledge updating underlying age-related differences in choice behavior during feedback learning. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.635996

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nachmani H, Paran I, Salti M et al (2021) Examining different motor learning paradigms for improving balance recovery abilities among older adults, random vs. block training-study protocol of a randomized non-inferiority controlled trial. Front Hum Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.624492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dick MB, Hsieh S, Dick-Muehlke C et al (2000) The variability of practice hypothesis in motor learning: does it apply to Alzheimer’s disease? Brain Cogn 44:470–489. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.2000.1206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Czyż SH (2021) Variability of Practice, Information Processing, and Decision Making-How Much Do We Know? Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.639131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sabah K, Dolk T, Meiran N et al (2019) When less is more: costs and benefits of varied vs. fixed content and structure in short-term task switching training. Psychol Res 83:1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1006-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pesce C (2012) Shifting the focus from quantitative to qualitative exercise characteristics in exercise and cognition research. J Sport Exerc Psychol 34:766–786. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.6.766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V et al (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:695–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Innocenti A, Cammisuli DM, Sgromo D et al (2017) Lifestyle, physical activity and cognitive functions: the impact on the scores of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCa). Arch Ital Biol 155:25–32. https://doi.org/10.12871/000398292017123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dautzenberg G, Lijmer J, Beekman A (2020) Diagnostic accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for cognitive screening in old age psychiatry: Determining cutoff scores in clinical practice. Avoiding spectrum bias caused by healthy controls. J Geriatr Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.5227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Forte R, De Vito G, Boreham CAG (2021) Reliability of walking speed in basic and complex conditions in healthy, older community-dwelling individuals. Aging Clin Exp Res 33:311–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01543-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Alcazar J, Losa-Reyna J, Rodriguez-Lopez C et al (2018) The sit-to-stand muscle power test: An easy, inexpensive and portable procedure to assess muscle power in older people. Exp Gerontol 112:38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2018.08.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yogev-Seligmann G, Hausdorff JM, Giladi N (2008) The role of executive function and attention in gait. Mov Disord 23:329–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21720

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Forte R, Boreham CA, De Vito G et al (2014) Measures of static postural control moderate the association of strength and power with functional dynamic balance. Aging Clin Exp Res 26:645–653. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-014-0216-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rikli RE, Jones CJ (1999) Development and validation of a functional fitness test for community-residing older adults. JAPA 7:129–161. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.7.2.129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nets Y (2019) Is there a preferred mode of exercise for cognition enhancement in older age?: a narrative review. Front Med 6:57. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2019.00057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Li KZ, Roudaia E, Lussier M et al (2010) Benefits of cognitive dual-task training on balance performance in healthy older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 65:1344–1352. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glq151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pichierri G, Wolf P, Murer K et al (2011) Cognitive and cognitive-motor interventions affecting physical functioning: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 11:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-11-29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Macaluso A, De Vito G (2004) Muscle strength, power and adaptations to resistance training in older people. Eur J Appl Physiol 91:450–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-003-0991-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Krishnan K, Rossetti H, Hynan LS et al (2017) Changes in Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scores Over Time. Assessment 24:772–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116654217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Godde B, Voelcker-Rehage C (2017) Cognitive resources necessary for motor control in older adults are reduced by walking and coordination training. Front Hum Neurosci 11:156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pesce C, Croce R, Ben-Soussan TD et al (2016) Variability of practice as an interface between motor and cognitive development. Int J Sport Exer Psychol 17:133–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Diamond A (2000) Close Interrelation of Motor Development and Cognitive Development and of the Cerebellum and Prefrontal Cortex. Child Dev 71:44–56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr Francesca Brienza of UISP Roma for recruitment of participants, and Microgate S.r.l, Bolzano for supplying the training devices.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome “Foro Italico”, Rome, Italy

    Roberta Forte, Chiara Trentin, Nicoletta Tocci, Stefania Lucia, Merve Aydin & Francesco Di Russo

  2. Santa Lucia Foundation IRCCS, Rome, Italy

    Francesco Di Russo

Authors
  1. Roberta Forte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chiara Trentin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicoletta Tocci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefania Lucia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Merve Aydin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francesco Di Russo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by RF, FDR, SL, MA. Training and testing of participants were performed by NT, SL, CT. The first draft of the manuscript was written by RF and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. The authors have full control of all primary data and allow the journal to review our data if requested.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberta Forte.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study received approval by the board for research of the local university (Committee for the Authorization of Departmental Research (CAR) approval code CARD-74/2020), Università di Roma Foro Italico.

Human and animal rights

The study has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

All participants signed informed consents before the assessments.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forte, R., Trentin, C., Tocci, N. et al. Motor−cognitive exercise with variability of practice and feedback improves functional ability and cognition in older individuals. Aging Clin Exp Res 35, 2797–2806 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-023-02568-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-023-02568-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation