Author
Listed:
- Deborah A LowePhD
- Rebecca K MacAulayPhD
- Dana M SzelesPhD
- Nicholas J MilanoMD
- Mark T WagnerPhD
- Nicole AndersonPhD, CPsych
Abstract
ObjectivesResearch has longitudinally linked dual-task gait dysfunction to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia risk. Our group previously demonstrated that dual-task gait speed assessment distinguished between subjective cognitive complaints (SCC) and MCI in a memory clinic setting, and also found that differences in dual-task gait speed were largely attributable to executive attention processes. This study aimed to reproduce these findings in a larger diverse sample and to extend them by examining whether there were group differences in single- versus dual-task cognitive performance (number of letters correctly sequenced backward).MethodTwo-hundred fifty-two patients (M age = 66.01 years, SD = 10.46; 119 MCI, 133 SCC) presenting with cognitive complaints in an academic medical setting underwent comprehensive neuropsychological and gait assessment (single- and dual-task conditions).ResultsPatients with MCI walked slower and showed greater decrement in cognitive performance than those with SCC during dual-task conditions. Neuropsychological measures of executive attention accounted for significant variance in dual-task gait performance across diagnostic groups beyond demographic and health risk factors.DiscussionReproduction of our results within a sample over four times the previous size provides support for the use of dual-task gait assessment as a marker of MCI risk in clinical settings.
Suggested Citation
Deborah A LowePhD & Rebecca K MacAulayPhD & Dana M SzelesPhD & Nicholas J MilanoMD & Mark T WagnerPhD & Nicole AndersonPhD, CPsych, 2020.
"Dual-Task Gait Assessment in a Clinical Sample: Implications for Improved Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment,"
The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 75(7), pages 1372-1381.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:geronb:v:75:y:2020:i:7:p:1372-1381.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:75:y:2020:i:7:p:1372-1381.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.