Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
We previously showed that dual-task cost (DTC) on gait speed in people with Parkinson's disease (PD) improved after 6 weeks of the Agility Boot Camp with Cognitive Challenge (ABC-C) exercise program. Since deficits in dual-task gait speed are associated with freezing of gait and gray matter atrophy, here we performed preplanned secondary analyses to answer two questions: (a) Do people with PD who are freezers present similar improvements compared to nonfreezers in DTC on gait speed with ABC-C? (b) Can cortical thickness at baseline predict responsiveness to the ABC-C? The DTC from 39 freezers and 43 nonfreezers who completed 6 weeks of ABC-C were analyzed. A subset of 51 participants (21 freezers and 30 nonfreezers) with high quality imaging data were used to characterize relationships between baseline cortical thickness and delta (Δ) DTC on gait speed following ABC-C. Freezers showed larger ΔDTC on gait speed than nonfreezers with ABC-C program (p < .05). Cortical thickness in visual and fronto-parietal areas predicted ΔDTC on gait speed in freezers, whereas sensorimotor-lateral thickness predicted ΔDTC on gait speed in nonfreezers (p < .05). When matched for motor severity, visual cortical thickness was a common predictor of response to exercise in all individuals, presenting the largest effect size. In conclusion, freezers improved gait automaticity even more than nonfreezers from cognitively challenging exercise. DTC on gait speed improvement was associated with larger baseline cortical thickness from different brain areas, depending on freezing status, but visual cortex thickness showed the most robust relationship with exercise-induced improvements in DTC.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.