ArticleHeliyon2016
Timing of reactive stepping among individuals with sub-acute stroke: effects of 'single-task' and 'dual-task' conditions.
Article in Heliyon, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of dual-task training in enhancing cognitive and motor recovery for post-stroke rehabilitation.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Perturbation-based dual task assessment in older adults with mild cognitive impairment.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Performance decrements in balance tasks are often observed when a secondary cognitive task is performed simultaneously. This study aimed to determine whether increased cognitive load resulted in altered reactive stepping in individuals with sub-acute stroke, compared to a reactive stepping trial with no secondary task. The secondary purpose was to determine whether differences existed between the first usual-response trial, subsequent usual-response trials, and the dual-task condition. Individuals with sub-acute stroke were exposed to external perturbations to elicit reactive steps. Perturbations were performed under a usual-response (single-task) and dual-task condition. Measures of step timing and number of steps were based on force plate and video data, respectively; these measures were compared between the usual-response and dual-task trials, and between the first usual-response trial, later usual-response trials (trials 2-5) and a dual-task trial. A longer time of unloading onset and greater number of steps were identified for the first usual-response trial compared to later usual-response trials. No significant differences were identified between usual-response and dual-task trials. Although improvements were observed from the first to subsequent usual-response lean-and-release trials, performance then tended to decrease with the introduction of the dual-task condition. These findings suggest that when introduced after usual-response trials, the dual-task trial may represent the first trial of a new condition, which may be beneficial in reducing the potential for adaptation that may occur after multiple repetitions of a reactive stepping task. Therefore, these findings may lend support to the introduction of a new condition (i.e. a dual-task trial) in addition to usual-response trials when assessing reactive balance in individuals with stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.