Walking in high-risk settings: Do older adults still prioritize gait when distracted by a cognitive task?
When a cognitive and a motor task like walking or keeping one’s balance are performed concurrently, performance usually deteriorates. Older adults have often been shown to prioritize their motor performance in such dual-task situations, possibly to protect themselves from falls. The current study investigates whether these prioritization behaviors can still be observed when several challenges are combined. Younger (20–30 years old) and older adults (60–70 years old; n = 24 in each group) were asked to walk through virtual environments with and without a cognitive load (3-back task). Walking difficulty was increased by walking on an elevated surface or on a narrow as opposed to a broad track, or both. Walking instructions emphasized speed and accuracy (avoiding missteps). No instruction was given concerning which performance dimension should be prioritized during dual-task trials. Participants decreased their 3-back performance while walking. Younger adults maintained their walking speed on elevated surfaces and were able to keep the number of missteps low, even when walking on a narrow track while performing the cognitive task. Older adults increased their walking speed on elevated relative to even surfaces and committed more missteps under cognitive load. Results suggest that task prioritization might fail in healthy older adults if several challenges are combined in high-risk settings.
KeywordsDual-task Cognition Walking Threat Aging
We thank Paul Czienskowski for programming the adaptive treadmill task, and Julius Verrel and Nathaniel Boyden for helpful discussions. We also would like to thank Gabi Faust, Danilo Jagenow, Nina Lisofsky, Djamila Maleika, and Astrid Strey for their help with data collection. This work was supported by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Cain CK, LeDoux JE (2008) Emotional processing and motivation: in search of brain mechanisms. In: Elliot AJ (ed) Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. Psychology Press, New York, pp 17–34Google Scholar
- Czienskowski P, Schellenbach M, Oertzen TV (2008) Feedback-controlled locomotion in virtual environments. In: Gulz A, Magnusson L, Malmborg H, Eftring H, Jönsson B, Tollmar K (eds) NordiCHI 2008: building bridges. ACM Press, New York, pp 447–450Google Scholar
- Lehrl S, Merz J, Burkhard G, Fischer S (1991) Manual zum MWT-A. Perimed Fachbuch Verlag, ErlangenGoogle Scholar
- Mirelman A, Maidan I, Herman T, Deutsch JE, Giladi N, Hausdorff JM (2011) Virtual reality for gait training: can it induce motor learning to enhance complex walking and reduce fall risk in patients with Parkinson’s Disease? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 66A:234–240. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glq201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott M (2000) Attentional demands and postural control: the effect of sensory context. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1:M10–M16Google Scholar
- Wechsler D (1981) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—revised (WAIS-R). Psychological Corporation, New YorkGoogle Scholar