Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive task modality influences postural control during quiet standing in healthy older adults

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The interstimulus interval of a cognitive task was found to have a limited effect on postural control in young adults, while visual cognitive tasks were found to improve stability compared to auditory tasks. It is of interest to investigate whether postural control in healthy older adults is sensitive to these types of cognitive task manipulations.

Aims

The objectives of the present experiment were to evaluate the impact of interstimulus interval and modality of a continuous cognitive task on postural control in healthy older adults.

Methods

Fifteen healthy older adults (70 ± 3.2 years, 3 male) were asked to stand with feet together on a force platform while performing auditory and visual cognitive tasks performed with interstimulus intervals of 2 and 5 s.

Results

Visual tasks led to reductions in sway area and sway variability in the anterior–posterior direction compared to auditory tasks (ps ≤ 0.05). The interstimulus interval did not lead to a change in sway, except for a small change in the medial–lateral direction for the 2-s interval compared to the 5-s interval (p = 0.05).

Discussion and conclusions

Results suggest that the interstimulus interval had a very limited effect on postural sway. The modality of the cognitive task had a greater effect on postural sway, as visual cognitive tasks yielded smaller sway area and anterior–posterior sway variability than auditory conditions. Visual stimuli may have acted as an anchor, yielding reduced sway.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Andersson G, Hagman J, Talianzadeh R et al (2002) Effect of cognitive load on postural control. Brain Res Bull 58:135–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-9230(02)00770-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stins JF, Roerdink M, Beek PJ (2011) To freeze or not to freeze? Affective and cognitive perturbations have markedly different effects on postural control. Hum Mov Sci 30:190–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2010.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Swan L, Otani H, Loubert PV et al (2004) Improving balance by performing a secondary cognitive task. Br J Psychol 95:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712604322779442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Polskaia N, Richer N, Dionne E et al (2015) Continuous cognitive task promotes greater postural stability than an internal or external focus of attention. Gait Posture 41:454–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.11.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Richer N, Polskaia N, Lajoie Y (2017) Continuous cognitive task promotes greater postural stability than an internal or external focus of attention in older adults. Exp Aging Res 43:21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2017.1258214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wulf G, McNevin N, Shea CH (2001) The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Q J Exp Psychol A 54:1143–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/713756012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McNevin NH, Shea CH, Wulf G (2003) Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention enhances learning. Psychol Res 67:22–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0093-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wulf G, Shea CH, Park JH (2001) Attention and motor performance: preferences for and advantages of an external focus. Res Q Exerc Sport 72:335–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2001.10608970

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wulf G (2007) Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 10 years of research. Beweg Train 1:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vance J, Wulf G, Töllner T et al (2004) EMG activity as a function of the performer’s focus of attention. J Mot Behav 36:450–459. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.36.4.450-459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zachry T, Wulf G, Mercer J et al (2005) Increased movement accuracy and reduced EMG activity as the result of adopting an external focus of attention. Brain Res Bull 67:304–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2005.06.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Marchant DC, Greig M, Scott C (2009) Attentional focusing instructions influence force production and muscular activity during isokinetic elbow flexions. J Strength Cond Res 23:2358–2366. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b8d1e5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Polskaia N, Lajoie Y (2016) Reducing postural sway by concurrently performing challenging cognitive tasks. Hum Mov Sci 46:177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2015.12.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lajoie Y, Richer N, Jehu DA et al (2016) Continuous cognitive tasks improve postural control compared to discrete cognitive tasks to discrete cognitive tasks. J Mot Behav 48:264–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2015.1089833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lajoie Y, Jehu DA, Richer N et al (2017) Continuous and difficult discrete cognitive tasks promote improved stability in older adults. Gait Posture 55:43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.04.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Polskaia N, Lajoie Y (2016) Interstimulus intervals and sensory modality modulate the impact of a cognitive task on postural control. J Mot Behav 48:482–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2015.1134435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jamet M, Deviterne D, Gauchard GC et al (2007) Age-related part taken by attentional cognitive processes in standing postural control in a dual-task context. Gait Posture 25:179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.03.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Riley MA, Baker AA, Schmit JM et al (2005) Effects of visual and auditory short-term memory tasks on the spatiotemporal dynamics and variability of postural sway. J Mot Behav 37:311–324. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.37.4.311-324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Woollacott M, Vander Velde TJ (2008) Non-visual spatial tasks reveal increased interactions with stance postural control. Brain Res 1208:95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.03.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Redfern MS, Chambers AJ, Jennings JR et al (2017) Sensory and motoric influences on attention dynamics during standing balance recovery in young and older adults. Exp Brain Res 235:2523–2531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-4985-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P (1975) “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Vander Velde T, Woollacott MH, Shumway-Cook A (2005) Selective utilization of spatial working memory resources during stance posture. Neuroreport 16:773–777. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200505120-00023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hunter MC, Hoffman MA (2001) Postural control: visual and cognitive manipulations. Gait Posture 13:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6362(00)00089-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Al-Yahya E, Dawes H, Smith L et al (2011) Cognitive motor interference while walking: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35:715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 125 University Avenue, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

    Natalie Richer & Yves Lajoie

Authors
  1. Natalie Richer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yves Lajoie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yves Lajoie.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The researchers have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in the present study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richer, N., Lajoie, Y. Cognitive task modality influences postural control during quiet standing in healthy older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res 31, 1265–1270 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-018-1068-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-018-1068-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation