A comparison of two walking while talking paradigms in aging

Clara Li, Joe Verghese, Roee Holtzer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

31 Scopus citations


Background: Our study aimed to [1] compare dual-task costs in gait and cognitive performance during two dual-task paradigms: walking while reciting alternate letters of the alphabet (WWR) and walking while counting backward by sevens (WWC); [2] examine the relationship between the gait and cognitive interference tasks when performed concurrently. Scope: Gait and cognitive performance were tested in 217 non-demented older adults (mean age 76. ±. 8.8 years; 56.2% female) under single and dual-task conditions. Velocity (cm/s) was obtained using an instrumented walkway. Cognitive performance was assessed using accuracy ratio: [correct responses]/[total responses]. Linear mixed effects models revealed significant dual-task costs, with slower velocity (p< .01) and decreased accuracy ratio (p<. .01) in WWR and WWC compared to their respective single task conditions. Greater dual-task costs in velocity (p<. .01) were observed in WWC compared to WWR. Pearson correlations revealed significant and positive relationships between gait and cognitive performance in WWR and WWC (p<. .01); increased accuracy ratio was associated with faster velocity. Conclusions: Our findings suggested that dual-task costs in gait increase as the complexity of the cognitive task increases. Furthermore, the positive association between the gait and cognitive tasks suggest that dual-task performance was not influenced by task prioritization strategies in this sample.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)415-419
Number of pages5
JournalGait and Posture
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jul 2014


  • Attention
  • Dual-task
  • Elderly
  • Walking
  • Walking while talking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biophysics
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Rehabilitation


Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of two walking while talking paradigms in aging'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this