Refine
Document Type
- Article (9)
- Preprint (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (12)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (12)
Keywords
- Older adults (2)
- accelerometry (2)
- exercise (2)
- physical activity (2)
- AML (1)
- Cognitive-motor interference (1)
- Dual task walking (1)
- Fall risk (1)
- Fear of falling (1)
- Gait analysis (1)
Institute
The ecological validity of neuropsychological testing (NT) has been questioned in the sports environment. A frequent criticism is that NT, mostly consisting of pen and paper or digital assessments, lacks relevant bodily movement. This study aimed to identify the determinants of a newly developed testing battery integrating both cognitive and motor demands. Twenty active individuals (25 ± 3 years, 11 males) completed the new motor-cognitive testing battery (MC), traditional NT (Stroop test, Trail Making test, Digit Span test) and isolated assessments of motor function (MF; Y-balance test, 20m-sprint, counter-movement jump). Kendal’s tau and partial Spearman correlations were used to detect associations between MC and NT/MF. Except for two items (Reactive Agility A and counter-movement jump; Run-Decide and sprint time; r = 0.37, p < 0.05), MC was not related to MF. Similarly, MC and NT were mostly unrelated, even when controlling for the two significant motor covariates (p > 0.05). The only MC item with (weak to moderate) associations to NT was the Memory Span test (Digit Span backwards and composite; r = 0.43–0.54, p < 0.05). In sum, motor-cognitive function appears to be largely independent from its two assumed components NT and MF and may represent a new parameter in performance diagnostics.
Organized running events have gained substantial popularity. This study aimed to elucidate the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain, knowledge about injury prevention as well as the attitudes and motivations of individuals participating in the JP Morgan Corporate Challenge in Frankfurt (Germany). A total of 720 recreational runners completed a digital questionnaire immediately prior to the start. The majority of them displayed low to moderate physical activity levels and were rather unambitious regarding targeted finishing time. One quarter (25.3%) participated for the first time in an organized race. The most stated reasons to register were team building (76.4%) and experiencing the run’s atmosphere (50.6%). In contrast, improving health played a minor role (19.4%). More than one in five individuals (n = 159 runners) reported pain, with the most common locations being the knee and lower back. Both at rest (3.2/10 on a numerical rating scale) and during activity (4.7/10), average pain intensity was clinically relevant. Almost three thirds of the participants believed that stretching and wearing appropriate shoes would be effective for injury prevention while other methods such as resistance training, balance exercise or wearing of orthoses were rarely named. Musculoskeletal pain is a significant burden in runners participating in an urban mass event. In view of the poor knowledge about injury prevention, organizers and coaches may consider offering structured preparation programs as well as tailored running-related health education.