ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2026
Uneven Landscape of Cognitive-Motor Dual-Task Research Across Rehabilitation Fields: A State-of-the-Field and Pattern Analysis.
Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive-motor dual-task (CMDT) research has expanded rapidly over the past 2 decades, yet this growth has occurred almost exclusively within geriatric and neurologic rehabilitation. In contrast, musculoskeletal, sports, cardiopulmonary, pediatric, and pain rehabilitation fields demonstrate markedly limited engagement with CMDT despite its relevance to motor control and functional performance. This Special Communication synthesizes the current state-of-the-field and examines the structural mechanisms that have produced this persistent interdisciplinary imbalance. Drawing from existing literature, the analysis identifies a set of recurring patterns: (1) CMDT emerged historically within domains where gait, balance, and cognitive decline are central clinical outcomes, creating an early advantage for geriatric and neurologic research; (2) CMDT-sensitive outcomes are not equally prioritized across all rehabilitation fields, reducing its perceived relevance in others; (3) standardization of dual-task assessments has developed primarily within neurologic and aging research, limiting methodological accessibility elsewhere; (4) clinician-level barriers-including time, expertise, and tool availability-restrict CMDT implementation even within well established settings; and (5) evidence and expertise have accumulated most rapidly in the fields where CMDT was first adopted, reinforcing its continued concentration in those domains. Collectively, these patterns suggest that the uneven distribution of CMDT research is not a transient artifact but a reflection of deeper disciplinary structures within rehabilitation science. By clarifying these mechanisms, this work provides a conceptual foundation for understanding why CMDT has flourished in some fields but not others, without presuming uniform applicability or advocating for indiscriminate expansion.
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.