Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- dual task (3) (remove)
Institute
Dual-task paradigms encompass a broad range of approaches to measure cognitive load in instructional settings. As a common characteristic, an additional task is implemented alongside a learning task to capture the individual’s unengaged cognitive capacities during the learning process. Measures to determine these capacities are, for instance, reaction times and interval errors on the additional task, while the performance on the learning task is to be maintained. Opposite to retrospectively applied subjective ratings, the continuous assessment within a dual-task paradigm allows to simultaneously monitor changes in the performance related to previously defined tasks. Following the Cognitive Load Theory, these changes in performance correspond to cognitive changes related to the establishment of permanently existing knowledge structures. Yet the current state of research indicates a clear lack of standardization of dual-task paradigms over study settings and task procedures. Typically, dual-task designs are adapted uniquely for each study, albeit with some similarities across different settings and task procedures. These similarities range from the type of modality to the frequency used for the additional task. This results in a lack of validity and comparability between studies due to arbitrarily chosen patterns of frequency without a sound scientific base, potentially confounding variables, or undecided adaptation potentials for future studies. In this paper, the lack of validity and comparability between dual-task settings will be presented, the current taxonomies compared and the future steps for a better standardization and implementation discussed.
Although motor tasks at most times do not require much attention, there are findings that attention can alter neuronal activity not only in higher motor areas but also within the primary sensorimotor cortex. However, these findings are equivocal as attention effects were investigated only in either the dominant or the nondominant hand; attention was operationalized either as concentration (i.e., attention directed to motor task) or as distraction (i.e., attention directed away from motor task), the complexity of motor tasks varied and almost no left-handers were studied. Therefore, in this study, both right- and left-handers were investigated with an externally paced button press task in which subjects typed with the index finger of the dominant, nondominant, or both hands. We introduced four different attention levels: attention-modulation-free, distraction (counting backward), concentration on the moving finger, and divided concentration during bimanual movement. We found that distraction reduced neuronal activity in both contra- and ipsilateral primary sensorimotor cortex when the nondominant hand was tapping in both handedness groups. At the same time, distraction activated the dorsal frontoparietal attention network and deactivated the ventral default network. We conclude that difficulty and training status of both the motor and cognitive task, as well as usage of the dominant versus the nondominant hand, are crucial for the presence and magnitude of attention effects on sensorimotor cortex activity. In the case of a very simple button press task, attention modulation is seen for the nondominant hand under distraction and in both handedness groups.
Background: We aimed to investigate the potential effects of a 4-week motor–cognitive dual-task training on cognitive and motor function as well as exercise motivation in young, healthy, and active adults.
Methods: A total of 26 participants (age 25 ± 2 years; 10 women) were randomly allocated to either the intervention group or a control group. The intervention group performed a motor–cognitive training (3×/week), while the participants of the control group received no intervention. Before and after the intervention period of 4 weeks, all participants underwent cognitive (d2-test, Trail Making Test) and motor (lower-body choice reaction test and time to stabilization test) assessments. Following each of the 12 workouts, self-reported assessments (rating of perceived exertion, enjoyment and pleasant anticipation of the next training session) were done. Analyses of covariances and 95% confidence intervals plotting for between group and time effects were performed.
Results: Data from 24 participants were analysed. No pre- to post-intervention improvement nor a between-group difference regarding motor outcomes (choice-reaction: F = 0.5; time to stabilization test: F = 0.7; p > 0.05) occurred. No significant training-induced changes were found in the cognitive tests (D2: F = 0.02; Trail Making Test A: F = 0.24; Trail Making Test B: F = 0.002; p > 0.05). Both enjoyment and anticipation of the next workout were rated as high.
Discussion: The neuro-motor training appears to have no significant effects on motor and cognitive function in healthy, young and physically active adults. This might be explained in part by the participants’ very high motor and cognitive abilities, the comparably low training intensity or the programme duration. The high degree of exercise enjoyment, however, may qualify the training as a facilitator to initiate and maintain regular physical activity. The moderate to vigorous intensity levels further point towards potential health-enhancing cardiorespiratory effects.