Psychological Research

, Volume 82, Issue 1, pp 167–176 | Cite as

Effects of trying ‘not to move’ instruction on cortical load and concurrent cognitive performance

  • Christine Langhanns
  • Hermann Müller
Original Article


Motor and cognitive tasks often interfere when performed concurrently. The amount of interference typically scales with difficulty of the tasks involved. Thus, supposedly ‘easy’ motor tasks with restricted movement amplitude, like sitting on a chair, should show little or no interference with cognitive tasks at all. We measured the processing load induced by different postural tasks and their effect on cognitive performance under cognitive–motor dual-task conditions. Sixteen subjects performed postural motor tasks in three different positions: ‘Lying in a sun lounger’, ‘Sitting on a bike saddle’, and ‘Upright on feet’. In each position, three different movement instructions were given; ‘Stay stock-still’, ‘Relax’, ‘Move easily’. Each combination of position and instruction was performed as single task but also in a dual-task condition with a concurrent calculation task. Brain activity in the right prefrontal cortex was monitored using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. The instruction to ‘Stay stock-still’ produced higher cortical loads in single-task conditions for all positions compared to all other instructions. The calculation task induced additional brain activity in the same prefrontal area as the motor task. Calculation performance tended to be reduced in the ‘Lying’–‘Stay stock-still’ condition. We discuss the relevance of these findings for learning scenarios in school.



This research was supported by the German Research Foundation, DFG-Priority Program 1772, MU 1374/5-1.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Informed consent

The authors, further, declare that participants gave written informed consent before participating in the study.


  1. Amboni, M., Barone, P., & Hausdorff, J. M. (2013). Cognitive contributions to gait and falls: evidence and implications. Movement Disorders: Official Journal of the Movement Disorder Society, 28(11), 1520–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhatt, T., Subramaniam, S., & Varghese, R. (2016). Examining interference of different cognitive tasks on voluntary balance control in aging and stroke. Experimental Brain Research, 234(9), 2575–2584. doi: 10.1007/s00221-016-4662-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hahn, U. (2011). The problem of circularity in evidence, argument, and explanation. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 6(2), 172–182. doi: 10.1177/1745691611400240.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Harley, C., Wilkie, R. M., & Wann, J. P. (2009). Stepping over obstacles: attention demands and aging. Gait & Posture, 29(3), 428–432. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.10.063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hatakenaka, M., Miyai, I., Mihara, M., Sakoda, S., & Kubota, K. (2007). Frontal regions involved in learning of motor skill—a functional NIRS study. NeuroImage, 34(1), 109–116. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.08.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Huestegge, L., & Koch, I. (2014). When two actions are easier than one: how inhibitory control demands affect response processing. Acta Psychologica, 151, 230–236. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice hall series in experimental psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Mandrick, K., Derosiere, G., Dray, G., Coulon, D., Micallef, J.-P., & Perrey, S. (2013). Prefrontal cortex activity during motor tasks with additional mental load requiring attentional demand: a near-infrared spectroscopy study. Neuroscience Research, 76(3), 156–162. doi: 10.1016/j.neures.2013.04.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Meester, D., Al-Yahya, E., Dawes, H., Martin-Fagg, P., & Piñon, C. (2014). Associations between prefrontal cortex activation and H-reflex modulation during dual task gait. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 78. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00078.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Mehta, R. K., Shortz, A. E., & Benden, M. E. (2015). Standing up for learning: a pilot investigation on the neurocognitive benefits of stand-biased school desks. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(1), ijerph13010059. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13010059.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Mirelman, A., Maidan, I., Bernad-Elazari, H., Nieuwhof, F., Reelick, M., Giladi, N., & Hausdorff, J. M. (2014). Increased frontal brain activation during walking while dual tasking: an fNIRS study in healthy young adults. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation, 11, 85. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Newell, K. M., Liu, Y. T., & Mayer-Kress, G. (2001). Time scales in motor learning and development. Psychological Review, 108(1), 57–82. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.108.1.57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Noah, J. A., Ono, Y., Nomoto, Y., Shimada, S., Tachibana, A., Zhang, X., & Hirsch, J. (2015). fMRI validation of fNIRS measurements during a naturalistic task. Journal of Visualized Experiments: JoVE, 100, e52116. doi: 10.3791/52116.Google Scholar
  14. Obrig, H., & Villringer, A. (2003). Beyond the visible—imaging the human brain with light. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism, 23(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1097/01.WCB.0000043472.45775.29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Patel, P., Lamar, M., & Bhatt, T. (2014). Effect of type of cognitive task and walking speed on cognitive-motor interference during dual-task walking. Neuroscience, 260, 140–148. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.12.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Reissland, J., & Manzey, D. (2016). Serial or overlapping processing in multitasking as individual preference: effects of stimulus preview on task switching and concurrent dual-task performance. Acta Psychologica, 168, 27–40. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.04.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmidt-Kassow, M., Kulka, A., Gunter, T. C., Rothermich, K., & Kotz, S. A. (2010). Exercising during learning improves vocabulary acquisition: Behavioral and ERP evidence. Neuroscience Letters, 482(1), 40–44. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.06.089.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Simoneau, E. M., Billot, M., Martin, A., Perennou, D., & van Hoecke, J. (2008). Difficult memory task during postural tasks of various difficulties in young and older people: a pilot study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 119(5), 1158–1165. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.01.020.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Szturm, T., Maharjan, P., Marotta, J. J., Shay, B., Shrestha, S., & Sakhalkar, V. (2013). The interacting effect of cognitive and motor task demands on performance of gait, balance and cognition in young adults. Gait & Posture, 38(4), 596–602. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Impe, A., Bruijn, S. M., Coxon, J. P., Wenderoth, N., Sunaert, S., Duysens, J., & Swinnen, S. P. (2013). Age-related neural correlates of cognitive task performance under increased postural load. Age (Dordrecht, Netherlands), 35(6), 2111–2124. doi: 10.1007/s11357-012-9499-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. VanderVelde, T. J., Woollacott, M. H., & Shumway-Cook, A. (2005). Selective utilization of spatial working memory resources during stance posture. NeuroReport, 16(7), 773–777.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Sport ScienceJustus Liebig UniversityGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations