How Does Dual Tasking Effect Gait In Individuals Who Use Prosthetics?

Prosthetic use alters gait and creates asymmetry, which leads to compensatory movements, impaired balance control, and increased fall risk. Common gait changes associated with prosthetic use are decreased gait speed, decreased stance time on the prosthetic limb, and decreased base of support (BoS). Dual-tasking (DT) during gait has been shown to have a negative effect on gait speed during forward walking (FW). Previously, individuals with mild cognitive impairments demonstrated greater gait variability and higher fall risk associated with DT. The impact of DT and backward walking (BW) on individuals with lower extremity amputations has not been studied. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of DT and BW on the gait patterns of individuals that use unilateral (ULE) and bilateral lower extremity (BLE) prosthetics. METHODS: Six individuals with ULE or BLE amputation, at least six months experience using prosthetic(s), well-fitting prosthetic(s), and ability to walk and navigate curbs or stairs with or without using an assistive device walked the length of an instrumented walkway in forward and backward directions five times, each at a comfortable speed under single task (ST) and DT. For DT, participants counted backwards in increments, recited months in reverse order, or spelled a 5-lettered word backwards. Mean and coefficient of variability for stance time variability, step width, gait speed, single support center of pressure distance were analyzed using a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Gait speed was significantly lower while BW(p = 0.003) and DT(p = 0.015). Stride width was found to be significantly greater while DT(p = 0.01). Single support center of pressure distance was significantly smaller in BW(p = 0.001). Stance time variability was not found to be significant or have an interaction between FW and BW, and ST and DT. CONCLUSION: DT and BW significantly affected the participant’s gait speed, stride width, and single support center of pressure during gait. - Forward Walking Backward Walking Single Task Dual Task Single Task Dual Task Gait Speed (cm/s) 118.5 (14.8) 109.5 (19.0) 83.9 (16.2) 67.6 (21.1) Stride Width (cm) 19.8(4.5) 21.8 (4.8) 15.3 (4.1) 16.9 (2.7) Single Support Center of Pressure Distance (cm) 13.0 (1.1) 12.0 (1.8) 7.9 (1.4) 6.7 (3.0) Stance Time Variability (%) 4.1 (1.1) 4.3 (1.6) 7.2 (2.0) 8.9 (5.5)

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2024-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0001054736.33615.e3
Primary Topic
Muscle activation and electromyography studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How Does Dual Tasking Effect Gait In Individuals Who Use Prosthetics?

Alys Giordano, Nick Bush, Srikant Vallabhajosula, Alex Miller et al.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Muscle activation and electromyography studies
article

How Does Dual Tasking Effect Gait In Individuals Who Use Prosthetics?

Alys Giordano, Nick Bush, Srikant Vallabhajosula, Alex Miller, Chaney Patton
article en

Abstract

Prosthetic use alters gait and creates asymmetry, which leads to compensatory movements, impaired balance control, and increased fall risk. Common gait changes associated with prosthetic use are decreased gait speed, decreased stance time on the prosthetic limb, and decreased base of support (BoS). Dual-tasking (DT) during gait has been shown to have a negative effect on gait speed during forward walking (FW). Previously, individuals with mild cognitive impairments demonstrated greater gait variability and higher fall risk associated with DT. The impact of DT and backward walking (BW) on individuals with lower extremity amputations has not been studied. PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of DT and BW on the gait patterns of individuals that use unilateral (ULE) and bilateral lower extremity (BLE) prosthetics. METHODS: Six individuals with ULE or BLE amputation, at least six months experience using prosthetic(s), well-fitting prosthetic(s), and ability to walk and navigate curbs or stairs with or without using an assistive device walked the length of an instrumented walkway in forward and backward directions five times, each at a comfortable speed under single task (ST) and DT. For DT, participants counted backwards in increments, recited months in reverse order, or spelled a 5-lettered word backwards. Mean and coefficient of variability for stance time variability, step width, gait speed, single support center of pressure distance were analyzed using a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: Gait speed was significantly lower while BW(p = 0.003) and DT(p = 0.015). Stride width was found to be significantly greater while DT(p = 0.01). Single support center of pressure distance was significantly smaller in BW(p = 0.001). Stance time variability was not found to be significant or have an interaction between FW and BW, and ST and DT. CONCLUSION: DT and BW significantly affected the participant’s gait speed, stride width, and single support center of pressure during gait. - Forward Walking Backward Walking Single Task Dual Task Single Task Dual Task Gait Speed (cm/s) 118.5 (14.8) 109.5 (19.0) 83.9 (16.2) 67.6 (21.1) Stride Width (cm) 19.8(4.5) 21.8 (4.8) 15.3 (4.1) 16.9 (2.7) Single Support Center of Pressure Distance (cm) 13.0 (1.1) 12.0 (1.8) 7.9 (1.4) 6.7 (3.0) Stance Time Variability (%) 4.1 (1.1) 4.3 (1.6) 7.2 (2.0) 8.9 (5.5)

Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseVol. 56(10S)
Elon University (US)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
Muscle activation and electromyography studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.