Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation · 2017
Effects of dual-task conditions on cervical spine movement variability.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Niederer Daniel, Vogt Lutz, Vogel Johanna, Banzer Winfried
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The potential to accurately perform cervical movements during more challenging tasks might be of importance to prevent dysfunctional motion characteristics. Although sensorimotor function during dual-task conditions are of increasing interest in biomedical and rehabilitation research, effects of such conditions on movement consistency of the neck have not yet been investigated.
OBJECTIVE: In this crossover MiSpEx(Medicine in Spine Exercise)-diagnostic study, we aimed to explore differences between single and dual-task conditions on cervical movement variability.
METHODS: Nineteen healthy participants (9 male; 24.5 ± 3.3 y) performed 10 repetitive maximal cervical movements in (1) flexion/extension and (2) lateral flexion, during one single- and during two dual-task test conditions (cognitive, motor) in a randomised and cross-over sequence. Latter consisted of a working memory n-back task (n= 2) and a repetitive ankle movement task. Range of motion (RoM) was assessed using an external three-dimensional ultrasonic movement analysis system. Coefficient of variation (CV) for repetitive RoM was analysed for differences between conditions and controlled for variances in intra-individual movement characteristics.
RESULTS: Friedman and post-hoc Bonferroni-adjusted confidence intervals for differences from single- to dual-task values revealed changes in CV in flexion/extension from single-task to motor dual-task (+0.02 ± 0.02 (97.5%CI: 0.01; 0.03); p< 0.05) but not to cognitive dual-task condition (+0.01 ± 0.02 (97.5%CI: 0.003; 0.02)) nor for lateral flexion (p> 0.05). Pearson regression analyses revealed a linear negative (p< 0.01) influence of CV in flexion/extension on differences from single to both cognitive (R=2 0.47) and motor dual-task (R=2 0.55). Results for lateral flexion are comparable, baseline CV negatively impacts differences to cognitive (R=2 0.2) and motor dual-task performance (R=2 0.76; p< 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Participants with comparable low cervical CV at single-task display a profound increase during dual-task conditions while participants with a higher variability remained almost stable or showed a decrease. The results point toward a complex interrelationship of motion patterns and adaptation processes during challenging tasks in respect of cervical CV.
OBJECTIVE: In this crossover MiSpEx(Medicine in Spine Exercise)-diagnostic study, we aimed to explore differences between single and dual-task conditions on cervical movement variability.
METHODS: Nineteen healthy participants (9 male; 24.5 ± 3.3 y) performed 10 repetitive maximal cervical movements in (1) flexion/extension and (2) lateral flexion, during one single- and during two dual-task test conditions (cognitive, motor) in a randomised and cross-over sequence. Latter consisted of a working memory n-back task (n= 2) and a repetitive ankle movement task. Range of motion (RoM) was assessed using an external three-dimensional ultrasonic movement analysis system. Coefficient of variation (CV) for repetitive RoM was analysed for differences between conditions and controlled for variances in intra-individual movement characteristics.
RESULTS: Friedman and post-hoc Bonferroni-adjusted confidence intervals for differences from single- to dual-task values revealed changes in CV in flexion/extension from single-task to motor dual-task (+0.02 ± 0.02 (97.5%CI: 0.01; 0.03); p< 0.05) but not to cognitive dual-task condition (+0.01 ± 0.02 (97.5%CI: 0.003; 0.02)) nor for lateral flexion (p> 0.05). Pearson regression analyses revealed a linear negative (p< 0.01) influence of CV in flexion/extension on differences from single to both cognitive (R=2 0.47) and motor dual-task (R=2 0.55). Results for lateral flexion are comparable, baseline CV negatively impacts differences to cognitive (R=2 0.2) and motor dual-task performance (R=2 0.76; p< 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Participants with comparable low cervical CV at single-task display a profound increase during dual-task conditions while participants with a higher variability remained almost stable or showed a decrease. The results point toward a complex interrelationship of motion patterns and adaptation processes during challenging tasks in respect of cervical CV.