Cognitive-motor dual-task interference in adults with sickle cell disease.
Arvind P Subramaniam, Charity I Oyedeji, Jhana S Parikh and 2 others
PMID 37023564WHAT IT FOUND
Most adults with sickle cell disease slowed down when walking and talking.
They often prioritized the conversation over their gait. This dual-task assessment was feasible and acceptable. It may help identify functional decline earlier in this population.
Key findings
01The dual-task assessment was feasible, with 91% of consented participants completing it and no adverse events or reports of difficulty.
02When performing a cognitive task while walking, most participants exhibited motor interference (slowed gait) or prioritized cognition at the expense of walking speed.
03There was no significant relationship between age and single-task gait speed, but age group did not significantly interact with task performance in the statistical analysis.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study had a small sample size (40 participants), limiting the generalizability of the findings. The order of the dual-task trials (Letter A then Letter S) was fixed, which may have introduced sequence or practice effects, making it difficult to separate the impact of the letter difficulty from the trial order. The walking path included turns, which may have affected gait speed and cognitive performance independently of the dual-task interference. Participants were instructed to walk at normal speed and say as many words as possible, which may have led them to prioritize one task over the other rather than allocating attention equally.
Declared interests
The authors declare no competing interests. The study was supported by NIH grants.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the difference in interference patterns between the Letter A and Letter S trials as evidence that one letter is diagnostically superior. The fixed order of trials (A then S) means that practice effects or sequence bias likely contributed to the observed changes, rather than the cognitive load of the letters alone.