Experimental gerontology · 2026
Impact of simultaneous motor-cognitive training on motor capacities in older adults: A quasi-randomized parallel controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Godard Julien, Huet Anna, Rozec Manon, Chartier Coline, Chatrenet Antoine, Humeau-Heurtier Anne, Noury-Desvaux Bénédicte, Durand Sylvain
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There are normal physiological changes in physical and cognitive functioning with age. Combining different trainings simultaneously, by adding a cognitive task as a distractor of the motor task (additional) or solving a cognitive task with a motor task (incorporated), seems beneficial to counteract aging effects on functional capacities. However, studies are needed to distinguish benefits between additional or incorporated training and to compare these effects against conventional motor training. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of two simultaneous motor-cognitive trainings on motor capacities in older adults.
METHODS: During eight weeks, fifty-five older adults were partially randomized into one of the two motor-cognitive training groups (n = 40) or integrated in a motor (strength, balance and walking exercises) training control group (n = 15). Linear mixed models were used to evaluate training effectiveness adjusted to age, sex, body mass, training frequency, level of physical activity, physical and cognitive status. Motor outcomes of interest were the walking endurance, lower limb strength endurance, functional mobility and balance.
RESULTS: After adjusting for confounding variables, training can improve motor capacities (p < 0.01; ηp2 [0.14-0.51]). However, simultaneous motor-cognitive training effects are relatively not different from motor training effects and their modalities (incorporated and additional) do not differ between them and (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: This study provides insights about the potential of simultaneous motor-cognitive training for improving motor capacities in older adults, even if its efficiency is not different to motor training. Furthermore, neither incorporated nor additional training seem to be the optimal modality. Future comparative studies are needed to draw firm conclusions.
METHODS: During eight weeks, fifty-five older adults were partially randomized into one of the two motor-cognitive training groups (n = 40) or integrated in a motor (strength, balance and walking exercises) training control group (n = 15). Linear mixed models were used to evaluate training effectiveness adjusted to age, sex, body mass, training frequency, level of physical activity, physical and cognitive status. Motor outcomes of interest were the walking endurance, lower limb strength endurance, functional mobility and balance.
RESULTS: After adjusting for confounding variables, training can improve motor capacities (p < 0.01; ηp2 [0.14-0.51]). However, simultaneous motor-cognitive training effects are relatively not different from motor training effects and their modalities (incorporated and additional) do not differ between them and (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: This study provides insights about the potential of simultaneous motor-cognitive training for improving motor capacities in older adults, even if its efficiency is not different to motor training. Furthermore, neither incorporated nor additional training seem to be the optimal modality. Future comparative studies are needed to draw firm conclusions.