ArticleMilitary medicine2023
Assessing Cognitive-Motor Interference in Military Contexts: Validity and Reliability of Two Dual-tasking Tests.
Article in Military medicine, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between soldiers and fitness-matched civilians on sustained attention, neuromuscular fatigue and perceived responses during an exhaustive cognitive-motor dual-task.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- Integrated Blood Biomarker and Neurobehavioural Signatures of Latent Neuroinjury in Experienced Military Breachers Exposed to Repetitive Low-Intensity Blast.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCognitive-motor interference is the decrease in cognitive performance and/or physical performance occurring when a cognitive task and a physical task are performed concurrently (dual task) compared to when they are performed in isolation (single task). The aim of this study was to investigate the construct validity and test-retest reliability of two cognitive-motor interference tests in military contexts. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-two soldiers, officers, and cadets performed a 10-min loaded marching, a 10-min Psychomotor Vigilance Task, and the two tasks combined (visit 1). During visit 2, a 5-min running time trial, a 5-min Word Recall Task, and the two tasks combined. These tests were repeated by 20 participants after 2 weeks (visits 3 and 4).
resultsSignificant impairments were shown on both running distance (P < .001) and number of words recalled (P = .004) in the dual-task condition compared to the single-task condition. Significantly shorter step length (P < .001) and higher step frequency (P < .001) were found during the loaded marching in the dual-task condition compared to the single-task condition. No significant differences were observed in mean reaction time (P = .402) and number of lapses (P = .479) during the Psychomotor Vigilance Task. Good-to-excellent reliability was found for all the cognitive and physical variables in both single- and dual-task conditions, except for the number of lapses.
conclusionThese findings suggest that the Running + Word Recall Task test is a valid and reliable dual-tasking test that could be used to assess cognitive-motor interference in military contexts.
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.