Cognitive-motor dual-task ability of athletes with and without intellectual impairment

ABSTRACT

Cognition is important in many sports, for example, making split-second-decisions under pressure, or memorising complex movement sequences. The dual-task (DT) paradigm is an ecologically valid approach for the assessment of cognitive function in conjunction with motor demands. This study aimed to determine the impact of impaired intelligence on DT performance. The motor task required balancing on one leg on a beam, and the cognitive task was a multiple-object-tracking (MOT) task assessing dynamic visual-search capacity. The sample included 206 well-trained athletes with and without intellectual impairment (II), matched for sport, age and training volume (140 males, 66 females, M age = 23.2 ± 4.1 years, M training experience = 12.3 ± 5.7 years). In the single-task condition, II-athletes showed reduced balance control (F = 55.9, P < .001, η² = .23) and reduced MOT (F = 86.3, P < .001, η² = .32) compared to the control group. A mixed-model ANCOVA revealed significant differences in DT performance for the balance and the MOT task between both groups. The DT costs were significantly larger for the II-athletes (−8.28% versus −1.34% for MOT and −33.13% versus −12.89% for balance). The assessment of MOT in a DT paradigm provided insight in how impaired intelligence constrains the ability of II-athletes to successfully perform at the highest levels in the complex and dynamical sport-environment.

KEYWORDS:

• Multiple object tracking
• sport expertise
• balance
• cognition
• intellectual disability

Acknowledgements

The authors thank INAS and IPC for their support to conduct this study, and all members of the INAS-IPC Research Group (Prof. Jennifer Mactavish, Ryerson University Toronto, Prof. Jan Burns, University of Canterbury, Dr. Peter Van de Vliet, medical and scientific director of IPC, and Nick Parr, executive director of INAS) for the constructive discussions in preparing the study and facilitating the recruitment of participants.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The first (corresponding) author is supported by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC).