Advertisement

Cognitive control processes associated with successful gait performance in dual-task walking in healthy young adults

  • Tino StöckelEmail author
  • Anett Mau-Moeller
Original Article

Abstract

Growing evidence suggests that the reliance on cognitive control processes during normal walking increases as the locomotor task gets more complex and challenging. The aims of the present study were to explore the (negative) effects of smartphone gaming on gait performance in healthy young adults, and to identify cognitive resources that might help to maintain high gait performance during dual-task walking. Gait speed and gait variability during walking at a self-selected comfortable speed were assessed in 40 healthy, young adults, and compared between single-task and dual-task walking (i.e., concurrent smartphone gaming) in undisturbed, simple and more challenging walking environments (i.e., stepping over an obstacle while walking). Based on single-task performance, dual-tasking costs were computed and linked to higher-level cognitive control processes, which were assessed for each individual. Cognitive function testing encompassed tests on the mental representation of the gait, working memory capacity, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility. Our data revealed that gaming on a smartphone while walking strongly affected participants’ gait performance (i.e., up to 26.8% lower gait speed and 60.2% higher gait variability), and decrements in gait performance were related to higher cognitive control processes. Cognitive resources that were associated with performance decrements in dual-task walking include response inhibition, cognitive flexibility, working memory, and a well-structured mental representation of the gait. From that, it appears that even in healthy young adults better cognitive resources may help to maintain high gait performance in situations, in which we have to deal with dual- or multi-task demands (e.g., using a smartphone) while walking.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Franziska Kesper, Paul Sternberg and Hendrikje Suhr for their help in data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Al-Yahya, E., Dawes, H., Smith, L., Dennis, A., Howells, K., & Cockburn, J. (2011). Cognitive motor interference while walking: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 715–728.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amboni, M., Barone, P., & Hausdorff, J. M. (2013). Cognitive contributions to gait and falls: Evidence and implications. Movement Disorders, 28(11), 1520–1533.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beurskens, R., & Bock, O. (2012). Age-related deficits of dual-task walking: A review. Neural Plasticity, 2012, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/131608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beurskens, R., Steinberg, F., Antoniewicz, F., Wolff, W., & Granacher, U. (2016). Neural correlates of dual-task walking: Effects of cognitive versus motor interference in young adults. Neural Plasticity, 2016, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8032180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ble, A., Volpato, S., Zuliani, G., Guralnik, J. M., Bandinelli, S., Lauretani, F., & Ferrucci, L. (2005). Executive function correlates with walking speed in older persons: The InCHIANTI study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(3), 410–415.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53157.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowie, C. R., & Harvey, P. D. (2006). Administration and interpretation of the Trail Making Test. Nature Protocols, 1(5), 2277–2281.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2006.390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. London: Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corsi, P. M. (1972). Human memory and the medial temporal region of the brain (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from McGill University (PID 70754).Google Scholar
  9. Craik, F. I. M., & Bialystok, E. (2006). Cognition through the lifespan: Mechanisms of change. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 131–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 335–341.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412453722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychological Reviews, 64, 135–168.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamond, A., & Ling, D. S. (2016). Conclusions about interventions, programs, and approaches for improving executive functions that appear justified and those that, despite much hype, do not. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 34–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2015.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gläscher, J., Adolphs, R., Damasio, H., Bechara, A., Rudrauf, D., Calamia, M., & Tranel, D. (2012). Lesion mapping of cognitive control and value-based decision making in the prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(36), 14681–14686.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206608109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grant, D. A., & Berg, E. (1948). A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type card-sorting problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(4), 404–411.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holtzer, R., Mahoney, J. R., Izzetoglu, M., Izzetoglu, K., Onaral, B., & Verghese, J. (2011). fNIRS study of walking and walking while talking in young and old individuals. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 66A(8), 879–887.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glr068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hubert, A. (2015). True color [Software]. Available from http://play.google.com.
  19. Hyman, I. E., Boss, S. M., Wise, B. M., McKenzie, K. E., & Caggiano, J. M. (2009). Did you see the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(5), 597–607.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacksteit, R., Mau-Moeller, A., Behrens, M., Bader, R., Mittelmeier, W., Skripitz, R., & Stöckel, T. (2018). The mental representation of the human gait in patients with severe knee osteoarthrosis: A clinical study to aid understanding of impairment and disability. Clinical Rehabilitation, 32(1), 103–115.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215517719312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jacksteit, R., Mau-Moeller, A., Völker, A., Bader, R., Mittelmeier, W., Skripitz, R., & Stöckel, T. (2019). The mental representation of the human gait in hip osteoarthrosis and total hip arthroplasty patients: A clinical cross-sectional study. Clinical Rehabilitation, 33(2), 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelly, V. E., Eusterbrock, A. J., & Shumway-Cook, A. (2013). Factors influencing dynamic prioritization during dual-task walking in healthy young adults. Gait & Posture, 37(1), 131–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.05.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelly, V. E., Janke, A. A., & Shumway-Cook, A. (2010). Effects of instructed focus and task difficulty on concurrent walking and cognitive task performance in healthy young adults. Experimental Brain Research, 207(1–2), 65–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2429-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kessels, R. P. C., van Zandvoort, M. J. E., Postma, A., Kappelle, L. J., & de Haan, E. H. F. (2000). The Corsi block-tapping task: Standardization and normative data. Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 252–258.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324826AN0704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kressig, R. W., & Beauchet, O. (2006). Guidelines for clinical applications of spatio-temporal gait analysis in older adults. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 18(2), 174–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lamberg, E. M., & Muratori, L. M. (2012). Cell phones change the way we walk. Gait & Posture, 35(4), 688–690.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lim, J., Amado, A., Sheehan, L., & Van Emmerik, R. E. A. (2015). Dual task interference during walking: The effects of texting on situational awareness and gait stability. Gait & Posture, 42(4), 466–471.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.07.060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lopresti-Goodman, S. M., Rivera, A., & Dressel, C. (2012). Practicing safe text: The impact of texting on walking behavior. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 644–648.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lu, C., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(2), 174–207.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lustig, C., Shah, P., Seidler, R., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2009). Aging, training, and the brain: A review and future directions. Neuropsychology Review, 19(4), 504–522.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-009-9119-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyer, D. E., Kieras, D. E., Lauber, E., Schumacher, E. H., Glass, J., Zurbriggen, E., & Apfelblat, D. (1995). Adaptive executive control: Flexible multiple-task performance without pervasive immutable response-selection bottlenecks. Acta Psychologica, 90(1–3), 163–190.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(95)00026-Q.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Montero-Odasso, M., Verghese, J., Beauchet, O., & Hausdorff, J. M. (2012). Gait and cognition: A complementary approach to understanding brain function and the risk of falling. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 60(11), 2127–2136.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04209.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morris, R., Lord, S., Bunce, J., Burn, D., & Rochester, L. (2016). Gait and cognition: Mapping the global and discrete relationships in ageing and neurodegenerative disease. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 64, 326–345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.02.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mueller, S. T., & Piper, B. J. (2014). The psychology experiment building language (PEBL) and PEBL test battery. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 222, 250–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nasar, J., Hecht, P., & Wener, R. (2008). Mobile telephones, distracted attention, and pedestrian safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40(1), 69–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nasar, J. L., & Troyer, D. (2013). Pedestrian injuries due to mobile phone use in public places. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 57, 91–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.03.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dual-task performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 155–189). Hove, England: Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  38. Piper, B. J., Li, V., Eiwaz, M. A., Kobel, Y. V., Benice, T. S., Chu, A. M., & Mueller, S. T. (2012). Executive function on the psychology experiment building language test. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 110–123.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0096-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Plummer, P., Apple, S., Dowd, C., & Keith, E. (2015). Texting and walking: Effect of environmental setting and task prioritization on dual-task interference in healthy young adults. Gait & Posture, 41(1), 46–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1995). Category test and trail making test as measures of frontal lobe functions. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9(April), 50–56.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13854049508402057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Salthouse, T. A. (2010). Is Flanker-based inhibition related to age? Identifying specific influences of individual differences on neurocognitive variables. Brain and Cognition, 73(1), 51–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2010.02.003.Is.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sánchez-Cubillo, I., Periáñez, J. A., Adrover-Roig, D., Rodríguez-Sánchez, J. M., Ríos-Lago, M., Tirapu, J., & Barceló, F. (2009). Construct validity of the trail making test: Role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 438–450.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617709090626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schack, T. (2012). A method for measuring mental representation. In G. Tenenbaum & B. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of measurement in sport (pp. 203–214). Champaign, Ill: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  44. Schack, T., & Mechsner, F. (2006). Representation of motor skills in human long-term memory. Neuroscience Letters, 391(3), 77–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2005.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schack, T., & Ritter, H. (2009). The cognitive nature of action—functional links between cognitive psychology, movement science, and robotics. Progress in Brain Research, 174, 231–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(09)01319-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sigman, M., & Dehaene, S. (2006). Dynamics of the central bottleneck: Dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biology, 4(7), e220.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stins, J. F., Polderman, J. C. T., Boomsma, D. I., & de Geus, E. J. C. (2008). Conditional accuracy in response interference tasks: Evidence from the Eriksen flanker task and the spatial conflict task. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 409–417.  https://doi.org/10.2478/v10053-008-0005-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stöckel, T., Hughes, C. M. L., & Schack, T. (2012). Representation of grasp postures and anticipatory motor planning in children. Psychological Research, 76(6), 768–776.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0387-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stöckel, T., Jacksteit, R., Behrens, M., Skripitz, R., Bader, R., & Mau-Moeller, A. (2015). The mental representation of the human gait in young and older adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 943.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stuhr, C., Hughes, C. M. L., & Stöckel, T. (2018). Task-specific and variability-driven activation of cognitive control processes during motor performance. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 10811.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29007-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 418–424.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Willis, S. L., Tennstedt, S. L., Marsiske, M., Ball, K., Elias, J., Koepke, K. M., & ACTIVE Study Group. (2006). Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. JAMA, 296(23), 2805.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.23.2805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woollacott, M., & Shumway-Cook, A. (2002). Attention and the control of posture and gait: A review of an emerging area of research. Gait & Posture, 16(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yogev-Seligmann, G., Hausdorff, J. M., & Giladi, N. (2008). The role of executive function and attention in gait. Movement Disorders, 23(3), 329–342.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zelinski, E. M. (2009). Far transfer in cognitive training of older adults. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 27(5), 455–471.  https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-2009-0495.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sport ScienceUniversity of RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations