507
Views
92
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Multicomponent physical exercise with simultaneous cognitive training to enhance dual-task walking of older adults: a secondary analysis of a 6-month randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up

, , , &
Pages 1711-1732 | Published online: 28 Oct 2015

Figures & data

Table 1 Description of training contents according to the FITT principles

Figure 1 Simultaneous cognitive–physical training components: video game dancing (A) and treadmill memory training (B).

Notes: In (A), two participants perform steps on a pressure sensitive platform to the rhythm of the music. Step timing and direction are cued with arrows on a screen. In (B), a participant is walking on a treadmill while performing verbal memory exercises presented on a computer screen.
Figure 1 Simultaneous cognitive–physical training components: video game dancing (A) and treadmill memory training (B).

Figure 2 Examples of complementary balance (A) and strength (B) exercises.

Notes: The participant in (A) steps from one object to the next, trying to maintain balance under assistance of an instructor (objects are soft rubber “stones”, skipping ropes, and balance pads). (B) Shows one participant performing chair rises (squats) and another participant holding the “plank” position for global trunk stability, which was an exercise for the elderly with higher fitness level.
Figure 2 Examples of complementary balance (A) and strength (B) exercises.

Table 2 Baseline demographic characteristics and training compliance

Figure 3 Trial design and participants’ flow.

Notes: Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two multicomponent simultaneous cognitive–physical training groups (DANCE and MEMORY) or an exclusive physical exercise group (PHYS) and were trained over 6 months twice weekly for 1 hour. Gait variables, functional fitness, and fall frequency were assessed at pretest, 3-month and 6-month test, and at 1-year follow-up (except 6-MWT not repeated at follow-up). Fall frequency was additionally assessed 6 months after training.
Abbreviations: DANCE, virtual reality video game dancing; MEMORY, treadmill walking with simultaneous verbal memory training; 6-MWT, 6-minute walk test.
Figure 3 Trial design and participants’ flow.

Table 3 Gait performance data

Figure 4 Development of the gait variables that showed time × intervention contrasts from pretest to 6-month test.

Notes: (A) Depicts a significant first contrast with unchanged DTC in the two cognitive–physical interventions (DANCE and MEMORY) due to parallel improvements in ST and DT and rising DTC in PHYS due to improvement in ST and no change in DT (P=0.044, one tailed). (BD) Illustrate significant or trend to significant second contrasts (DANCE versus MEMORY): (B) in favor of DANCE (P=0.007, two tailed) and (C and D) in favor of MEMORY (trend P=0.062, two tailed and trend P=0.062, two tailed, respectively). Performance from 6 months until 1-year follow-up remained unchanged in (A, C, and D; all P>0.10), whereas “step time fast-ST” increased (B; trend P=0.077, two tailed). Error bars indicate ± standard error of the mean.
Abbreviations: DTC, dual-task cost; DANCE, virtual reality video game dancing; MEMORY, treadmill walking with simultaneous verbal memory training; ST, single-task; DT, dual-task; PHYS, treadmill walking.
Figure 4 Development of the gait variables that showed time × intervention contrasts from pretest to 6-month test.

Figure 5 Development of fall frequency over 2 years.

Notes: A significant reduction over the first three 6-month periods (P<0.001, one tailed) and a subsequent trend for an increase after the fourth period was shown (trend P=0.059, two-tailed). Error bars indicate ± standard error of the mean.
Abbreviations: DANCE, virtual reality video game dancing; MEMORY, treadmill walking with simultaneous verbal memory training; PHYS, treadmill walking.
Figure 5 Development of fall frequency over 2 years.

Table 4 Functional fitness, GDS, and FES-I performance data

Figure 6 Development of functional fitness.

Notes: (A) and (B) illustrate significant enhancements in two functional fitness measures from pretest to 6-month test (P<0.001, one tailed). Additionally (A) shows attenuated performance after 1-year follow-up (P=0.027, two-tailed). No differences between interventions were found. Six-minute walk test was not repeated at follow-up. Error bars indicate ± standard error of the mean.
Abbreviations: PHYS, treadmill walking; DANCE, virtual reality video game dancing; MEMORY, treadmill walking with simultaneous verbal memory training.
Figure 6 Development of functional fitness.

Figure 7 Performance developments for sexes.

Notes: (A) and (B) depict time × sex interactions from pretest to 6-month test in favor of the male participants in two measures related to muscular power (P=0.049, two tailed and trend P=0.061, two tailed, respectively). No significant interaction was found from 6-month test to 1-year follow-up. Error bars indicate ± standard error of the mean.
Abbreviation: ST, single-task.
Figure 7 Performance developments for sexes.

Table S1 Multiple regression for the linear global time effect (from pretest to 6-month test, N=71) and the interaction between orthogonal contrasts and time effect for gait variable “velocity”

Table S2 Multiple regression for the linear global time effect (from pretest to 6-month test, N=71) and the interaction between orthogonal contrasts and time effect for gait variable “step length”

Table S3 Multiple regression for the linear global time effect (from pretest to 6-month test, N=71) and the interaction between orthogonal contrasts and time effect for gait variable “step length variability”

Table S4 Multiple regression for the linear global time effect (from pretest to 6-month test, N=71) and the interaction between orthogonal contrasts and time effect for gait variable “step time”

Table S5 Multiple regression for the linear global time effect (from pretest to 6-month test, N=71) and the interaction between orthogonal contrasts and time effect for gait variable “step time variability”

Table S6 Repeated-measures ANOVA from 6 months to follow-up test for gait variables, N=47

Table S7 Multiple regression for the linear global time effect (from the 6-month period before training, to training, to 6 months after training, N=66) and the interaction between orthogonal contrasts and time effect for fall frequency

Table S8 Multiple regression for the linear global time effect (from pretest to 6-month test, N=71) and the interaction between orthogonal contrasts and time effect for functional fitness variables

Table S9 Repeated-measures ANOVA from 6 months to follow-up test for SPPB variables, N=47