ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Cognitive costs in motor-cognitive performance assessments depend on movement complexity and cognitive task design.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Cognitive performance is typically assessed using computer-based tests where participants respond via a simple upper extremity motor task such as a button press. This type of assessment has been criticised for its low ecological validity that does not consider the interaction between cognitive and more complex motor skills in sports and everyday life situations, which results in motor-cognitive interference. Consequently, motor-cognitive assessments integrating a more complex motor response into a cognitive test have gained popularity. However, the cognitive costs in motor-cognitive tests due to the interference of cognitive and motor processes have not yet been determined. Therefore, this study aimed to quantify the cognitive costs in motor-cognitive tests. Methods: Thirty-three healthy athletes performed four cognitive tests (simple reaction, choice-reaction, working memory, cognitive flexibility) in a cognitive and motor-cognitive setting. For the cognitive task, participants performed a computer-based cognitive assessment by responding with a button press on a keyboard. In the motor-cognitive condition, participants conducted a stepping movement which was identified by a Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) system integrated into motor-cognitive testing and training technology (SKILLCOURT®). Cognitive costs were determined by comparing reaction time and error rate between conditions (cognitive vs. motor-cognitive) while controlling for differences in measurement technology, neuromuscular conduction delay, and movement amplitude. Correlation analyses quantified the relationship between cognitive and motor-cognitive performance. Results: There were cognitive costs, as indicated by slower reaction times in the motor-cognitive test, for the choice-reaction ( Conclusion: The results confirm the presence of cognitive costs in motor-cognitive assessments. The type of motor response and test design influence cognitive costs and test performance and can even result in inverse cognitive costs during motor-cognitive tasks. This must be considered when interpreting motor-cognitive tests and suggest that computer-based assessments cannot simply be replaced by motor-cognitive alternatives.
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.