Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 419

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Single-Task Versus Dual-Task Training on Balance Performance in Older Adults: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Silsupadol, Patima, Shumway-Cook, Anne, Lugade, Vipul, van Donkelaar, Paul, Chou, Li-Shan, Mayr, Ulrich, Woollacott, Marjorie H.·2009·Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective To compare the effect of 3 different approaches to balance training on dual-task balance performance in older adults with balance impairment. Design A double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Setting University research laboratory. Participants Older adults (N=23) with balance impairment (mean age, 74.8y). They scored 52 or less on the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and/or walked with a self-selected gait speed of 1.1m/s or less. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 interventions: single-task training; dual-task training with fixed-priority instruction; and dual-task training with variable-priority instruction. Participants received 45-minute individualized training sessions, 3 times a week for 4 weeks. Main Outcome Measures Gait speed under single-task and dual-task conditions were obtained at baseline, the second week, the end of training, and the twelfth week after the end of training. Other measures, including the BBS and the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale, were collected at baseline and after training. Results Participants in all groups improved on the BBS (P<.001, effect size [ES]=.72), and walked significantly faster after training (P=.02, ES=.27). When a cognitive task was added, however, only participants who received dual-task training with fixed-priority instruction and dual-task training with variable-priority instructions exhibited significant improvements in gait speed (P<.001, ES=.57 and P<.001, ES=.46, respectively). In addition, only the dual-task training with variable-priority instruction group demonstrated a dual-task training effect at the second week of training and maintained the training effect at the 12-week follow-up. Only the single-task training group showed a significant increase on the ABC after training (P<.001, ES=.61). Conclusions Dual-task training is effective in improving gait speed under dual-task conditions in elderly with balance impairment. Training balance under single-task conditions may not generalize to balance control during dual-task contexts. Explicit instruction regarding attentional focus is an important factor contributing to the rate of learning and the retention of the dual-task training effect.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.09.559

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 419

Metadata

Authors
Silsupadol, P., Shumway-Cook, A., Lugade, V., van Donkelaar, P., Chou, L.-S., Mayr, U., & Woollacott, M. H.
Venue
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
90
Issue
3
Pages
381-387
ISSN
0003-9993 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2146621071
Cited by
419
References
3
FWCI
49.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.