Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundFalls are common in people with Parkinson's disease (PD) and are associated with gait impairments, particularly under dual-task conditions. Although gait characteristics differ between fallers and non-fallers, it remains unclear whether walking-related prefrontal cortex (PFC) activity also differs according to fall history. This study compared PFC activity and gait parameters between recurrent fallers (≥2 falls/year) and non-fallers with PD during single- and dual-task walking.MethodsParticipants with PD were classified as non-fallers (n = 34) or recurrent fallers (n = 18). They performed single- and dual-task walking (digit vigilance task) at a self-selected speed. PFC activity was assessed using mobile fNIRS, and gait parameters were obtained using an electronic walkway. A two-way ANOVA examined group and task effects, with task as a repeated measure.ResultsRecurrent fallers exhibited higher PFC activity than non-fallers, regardless of walking task (p = 0.027). A significant group*task interaction was found for step length variability (p = 0.032), with increased variability in fallers during dual-task walking (p = 0.004), but not in non-fallers (p = 0.662). Dual-task walking increased PFC activity, step time, and variability of step length and swing time, while reducing step length, gait velocity, and swing time in both groups (all p ≤ 0.021).ConclusionsRecurrent fallers with PD exhibited greater PFC activity across both walking conditions, which may reflect greater attentional demands and compensatory recruitment of PFC resources. Dual-task walking increased step length variability in recurrent fallers, suggesting that cognitively demanding walking conditions may reveal subtle gait impairments associated with fall history that are not evident during single-task walking.
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.