Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 8, 2025
Motor Dual-Tasks for Gait Analysis and Evaluation in Post-Stroke Patients
Published on: March 11, 2021
A Proposal for Complex Gait Evaluation Using Dual-Task Gait Termination Time
Context:
Gait termination time (GTT) has been used to predict falls in older adults but has not been explored in the sport rehabilitation setting. The incorporation of a concurrent cognitive task as a complex measure of gait in this clinical population could lead to better health-related outcomes.
Objective:
To compare the effect of planned and unplanned gait termination with and without a concurrent cognitive task on reaction time (RT), gait velocity, and GTT.
Design:
Cross-sectional.
Setting:
Laboratory.
Participants:
Twenty young adults (females 60.0%, age 20.1 [0.9] y, height 169.5 [8.8] cm, mass 67.4 [10.8] kg).
Intervention:
Participants completed 6 planned and 6 unplanned gait termination trials on an instrumented gait mat with and without a cognitive task.
Main Outcome Measures:
The authors measured RT (s), gait velocity (m/s), GTT (s), and normalized GTT (s2/m). A 2 (motor) × 2 (cognitive) repeated-measures analysis of variance (α = .05) was used; significant interaction effects were explored using Bonferroni-corrected t tests (α < .008).
Results:
Participants walked more slowly during dual-task trials compared with single-task trials (F1,19 = 4.401, P = .050). Participants walked significantly more slowly with a cognitive task during planned (P < .001, mean difference = -0.184 m/s, 95% CI, -0.256 to -0.111) and unplanned (P = .001, mean difference = -0.111 m/s, 95% CI, -0.173 to -0.050) gait termination. Participants walked significantly more slowly (P < .001, mean difference = -0.142 m/s, 95% CI, -0.210 to -0.075) when performing the most difficult task, unplanned termination with a cognitive task, than when performing the least difficult task, planned termination with no cognitive task. We observed a cognitive task main effect such that adding a cognitive task increased RT (F1,19 = 16.375, P = .001, mean difference = -0.118 s, 95% CI, -0.178 to -0.057) and slowed normalized GTT (F1,19 = 5.655, P = .028, mean difference = -0.167 s2/m, 95% CI, -0.314 to -0.020).
Conclusions:
Overall, participants displayed more conservative gait strategies and slower RT, normalized GTT, and gait velocity as task difficulty increased. More investigation is needed to truly understand the clinical meaningfulness of these measures in athletic injuries.
