Search

Abstract Background In youth, sex-related differences in balance performances have been reported with girls usually outperforming same-aged boys. However, it is not known whether sex also has an influence on learning of a new balance task in primary school-aged children. Therefore, the present study investigated sex-related differences in children learning to maintain balance under dynamic conditions. Methods Thirty-two children (16 girls, 16 boys) aged 8.5 ± 0.5 years practiced balancing on a stabilometer (i.e., to keep it as horizontal as possible) for seven trials (90 s each) on two consecutive days. Knowledge of results (KR) (i.e., time in balance) was provided after each trial. On day three learning was assessed using a retention test (i.e., balance task only) and a test of automation (i.e., balance plus concurrent motor interference task). Root-mean-square-error (RMSE) was recorded for all trials and used for further analysis. Results During practicing (Day 1, Day 2) RMSE values significantly decreased over the days (p = 0.019, d = 0.92) and trials (p = 0.003, d = 0.70) in boys and girls. Further, the main effect of sex showed a tendency toward significance (p = 0.082, d = 0.67). On day 3, the girls showed significantly smaller RMSE values compared to boys in the retention (p = 0.012, d = 1.00) and transfer test (p = 0.045, d = 0.74). Conclusions Performance increases during the acquisition phase tended to be larger in girls than in boys. Further, learning (i.e., retention and automation) was significantly larger in girls compared to boys. Therefore, practitioners (e.g., teachers, coaches) should supply boys and grils with balance exercises of various task difficulties and complexities to address their diverse learning progress.

The concurrent execution of two or more tasks simultaneously results in performance decrements in one or both conducted tasks. The practice of dual-task (DT) situations has been shown to decrease performance decrements. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of consecutive versus concurrent practice on cognitive and motor task performance under single-task (ST) and DT conditions. Forty-five young adults (21 females, 24 males) were randomly assigned to either a consecutive practice (INT consecutive) group, a concurrent practice (INT concurrent) group or a control (CON) group (i.e., no practice). Both INT groups performed 2 days of acquisition, i.e., practicing a cognitive and a motor task either consecutively or concurrently. The cognitive task required participants to perform an auditory stroop task and the number of correct responses was used as outcome measure. In the motor task, participants were asked to stand on a stabilometer and to keep the platform as close to horizontal as possible. The time in balance was calculated for further analysis. Pre- and post-practice testing included performance assessment under ST (i.e., cognitive task only, motor task only) and DT (i.e., cognitive and motor task simultaneously) test conditions. Pre-practice testing revealed no significant group differences under ST and DT test conditions neither for the cognitive nor the motor task measure. During acquisition, both INT groups improved their cognitive and motor task performance. The post-practice testing showed significantly better cognitive and motor task values under ST and DT test conditions for the two INT groups compared to the CON group. Further comparisons between the two INT groups revealed better motor but not cognitive task values in favor of the INT consecutive practice group (ST: p = 0.022; DT: p = 0.002). We conclude that consecutive and concurrent practice resulted in better cognitive (ST condition) and motor (ST and DT test conditions) task performance than no practice. In addition, consecutive practice resulted in superior motor task performance (ST and DT test conditions) compared to concurrent practice and is, therefore, recommended when executing DT practice schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies have reported positive effects of concurrent motor and cognitive task practice compared to motor or cognitive task practice only on dual-task performance in young adults. Knowledge about the effect of motor vs. cognitive task prioritization during practice on dual-task performance remains unclear and has not been investigated in depth so far. Thus, we examined the effects of motor task compared to cognitive task prioritization during dual-task practice on motor-cognitive performance in healthy young adults.Methods: Healthy young adults were randomly assigned to dual-task (DT; i.e., concurrent motor and cognitive practice) or single-task (ST; i.e., motor or cognitive task practice only) practice groups. In DT practice, subjects were instructed to either prioritize the motor or the cognitive task. The motor task required subjects to keep a stabilometer in a horizontal position. The cognitive task involved serial three subtractions. Outcome variables were the root-mean-square error (RMSE) for the motor task and the total number of correct calculations for the cognitive task. All participants practiced for 2 consecutive days under their respective treatment condition and were tested under DT condition 24 h later (i.e., retention on day 3) without providing instructions on task prioritization.Results: Irrespective of prioritization (i.e., prioritize the motor task or the cognitive task), the DT practice groups similarly improved their DT motor and cognitive task performance. The ST groups also improved motor or cognitive performance depending on their respective training contents (i.e., motor practice improved RMSE and cognitive practice improved number of correct calculations but not vice versa).Conclusion: We conclude that DT compared to ST practice is well-suited to improve DT performance, irrespective of task-prioritization. DT but not ST practice resulted in an improved modulation of both domains (i.e., motor and cognitive) during DT performance. Our findings might be explained by freeing up central resources following DT practice that can be used to effectively perform the concurrent execution of motor and cognitive processing demands. However, this process is not further enhanced by the prioritized task domain.

Background : Previous studies have reported positive effects of concurrent motor and cognitive task practice compared to motor or cognitive task practice only on dual-task performance in young adults. Knowledge about the effect of motor vs. cognitive task prioritization during practice on dual-task performance remains unclear and has not been investigated in depth so far. Thus, we examined the effects of motor task compared to cognitive task prioritization during dual-task practice on motor-cognitive performance in healthy young adults. Methods : Healthy young adults were randomly assigned to dual-task (DT; i.e., concurrent motor and cognitive practice) or single-task (ST; i.e., motor or cognitive task practice only) practice groups. In DT practice, subjects were instructed to either prioritize the motor or the cognitive task. The motor task required subjects to keep a stabilometer in a horizontal position. The cognitive task involved serial three subtractions. Outcome variables were the root-mean-square error (RMSE) for the motor task and the total number of correct calculations for the cognitive task. All participants practiced for 2 consecutive days under their respective treatment condition and were tested under DT condition 24 h later (i.e., retention on day 3) without providing instructions on task prioritization. Results : Irrespective of prioritization (i.e., prioritize the motor task or the cognitive task), the DT practice groups similarly improved their DT motor and cognitive task performance. The ST groups also improved motor or cognitive performance depending on their respective training contents (i.e., motor practice improved RMSE and cognitive practice improved number of correct calculations but not vice versa). Conclusion : We conclude that DT compared to ST practice is well-suited to improve DT performance, irrespective of task-prioritization. DT but not ST practice resulted in an improved modulation of both domains (i.e., motor and cognitive) during DT performance. Our findings might be explained by freeing up central resources following DT practice that can be used to effectively perform the concurrent execution of motor and cognitive processing demands. However, this process is not further enhanced by the prioritized task domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In youth, sex-related differences in balance performances have been reported with girls usually outperforming same-aged boys. However, it is not known whether sex also has an influence on learning of a new balance task in primary school-aged children. Therefore, the present study investigated sex-related differences in children learning to maintain balance under dynamic conditions. Methods: Thirty-two children (16 girls, 16 boys) aged 8.5 ± 0.5 years practiced balancing on a stabilometer (i.e., to keep it as horizontal as possible) for seven trials (90 s each) on two consecutive days. Knowledge of results (KR) (i.e., time in balance) was provided after each trial. On day three learning was assessed using a retention test (i.e., balance task only) and a test of automation (i.e., balance plus concurrent motor interference task). Root-mean-square-error (RMSE) was recorded for all trials and used for further analysis. Results: During practicing (Day 1, Day 2) RMSE values significantly decreased over the days (p = 0.019, d = 0.92) and trials (p = 0.003, d = 0.70) in boys and girls. Further, the main effect of sex showed a tendency toward significance (p = 0.082, d = 0.67). On day 3, the girls showed significantly smaller RMSE values compared to boys in the retention (p = 0.012, d = 1.00) and transfer test (p = 0.045, d = 0.74). Conclusions: Performance increases during the acquisition phase tended to be larger in girls than in boys. Further, learning (i.e., retention and automation) was significantly larger in girls compared to boys. Therefore, practitioners (e.g., teachers, coaches) should supply boys and grils with balance exercises of various task difficulties and complexities to address their diverse learning progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In everyday life, people engage in situations involving the concurrent processing of motor (balance) and cognitive tasks (i.e., “dual task situations”) that result in performance declines in at least one of the given tasks. The concurrent practice of both the motor and cognitive task may counteract these performance decrements. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of single task (ST) compared to dual task (DT) practice on learning a dynamic balance task.Methods: Forty-eight young adults were randomly assigned to either a ST (i.e., motor or cognitive task training only) or a DT (i.e., motor-cognitive training) practice condition. The motor task required participants to stand on a platform and keeping the platform as close to horizontal as possible. In the cognitive task, participants were asked to recite serial subtractions of three. For 2 days, participants of the ST groups practiced the motor or cognitive task only, while the participants of the DT group concurrently performed both. Root-mean-square error (RMSE) for the motor and total number of correct calculations for the cognitive task were computed.Results: During practice, all groups improved their respective balance and/or cognitive task performance. With regard to the assessment of learning on day 3, we found significantly smaller RMSE values for the ST motor (d = 1.31) and the DT motor-cognitive (d = 0.76) practice group compared to the ST cognitive practice group but not between the ST motor and the DT motor-cognitive practice group under DT test condition. Further, we detected significantly larger total numbers of correct calculations under DT test condition for the ST cognitive (d = 2.19) and the DT motor-cognitive (d = 1.55) practice group compared to the ST motor practice group but not between the ST cognitive and the DT motor-cognitive practice group.Conclusion: We conclude that ST practice resulted in an effective modulation of the trained domain (i.e., motor or cognitive) while only DT practice resulted in an effective modulation of both domains (i.e., motor and cognitive). Thus, particularly DT practice frees up central resources that were used for an effective modulation of motor and cognitive processing mechanisms.

Background: In everyday life, people engage in situations involving the concurrent processing of motor (balance) and cognitive tasks (i.e., "dual task situations") that result in performance declines in at least one of the given tasks. The concurrent practice of both the motor and cognitive task may counteract these performance decrements. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of single task (ST) compared to dual task (DT) practice on learning a dynamic balance task. Methods: Forty-eight young adults were randomly assigned to either a ST (i.e., motor or cognitive task training only) or a DT (i.e., motor-cognitive training) practice condition. The motor task required participants to stand on a platform and keeping the platform as close to horizontal as possible. In the cognitive task, participants were asked to recite serial subtractions of three. For 2 days, participants of the ST groups practiced the motor or cognitive task only, while the participants of the DT group concurrently performed both. Root-mean-square error (RMSE) for the motor and total number of correct calculations for the cognitive task were computed. Results: During practice, all groups improved their respective balance and/or cognitive task performance. With regard to the assessment of learning on day 3, we found significantly smaller RMSE values for the ST motor (d = 1.31) and the DT motor-cognitive (d = 0.76) practice group compared to the ST cognitive practice group but not between the ST motor and the DT motor-cognitive practice group under DT test condition. Further, we detected significantly larger total numbers of correct calculations under DT test condition for the ST cognitive (d = 2.19) and the DT motor-cognitive (d = 1.55) practice group compared to the ST motor practice group but not between the ST cognitive and the DT motor-cognitive practice group. Conclusion: We conclude that ST practice resulted in an effective modulation of the trained domain (i.e., motor or cognitive) while only DT practice resulted in an effective modulation of both domains (i.e., motor and cognitive). Thus, particularly DT practice frees up central resources that were used for an effective modulation of motor and cognitive processing mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]