ArticlePloS one2024
The effect of visual sensory interference during multitask obstacle crossing in younger and older adults.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When older adults step over obstacles during multitasking, their performance is impaired; the impairment results from central and/or sensory interference. The purpose was to determine if sensory interference alters performance under low levels of cognitive, temporal, and gait demand, and if the change in performance is different for younger versus older adults. Participants included 17 younger adults (20.9±1.9 years) and 14 older adults (69.7±5.4 years). The concurrent task was a single, simple reaction time (RT) task: depress button in response to light cue. The gait task was stepping over an obstacle (8 m walkway) in three conditions: (1) no sensory interference (no RT task), (2) low sensory interference (light cue on obstacle, allowed concurrent foveation of cue and obstacle), or (3) high sensory interference (light cue away from obstacle, prevented concurrent foveation of cue and obstacle). When standing, the light cue location was not relevant (no sensory interference). An interaction (sensory interference by task, p<0.01) indicated that RT was longer for high sensory interference during walking, but RT was not altered for standing, confirming that sensory interference increased RT during obstacle approach. An interaction (sensory interference by age, p<0.01) was observed for foot placement before the obstacle: With high sensory interference, younger adults placed the trail foot closer to the obstacle while older adults placed it farther back from the obstacle. The change increases the likelihood of tripping with the trail foot for younger adults, but with the lead limb for older adults. Recovery from a lead limb trip is more difficult due to shorter time for corrective actions. Overall, visual sensory interference impaired both RT and gait behavior with low levels of multitask demand. Changes in foot placement increased trip risk for both ages, but for different limbs, reducing the likelihood of balance recovery in older adults.
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.