Dual‐task effects on postural sway during sit‐to‐stand movement in children with Down syndrome

Abstract

Background Cognitive and postural tasks require common cognitive mechanisms, resulting in conflicts when both tasks are simultaneously performed. The presence of neuromotor dysfunctions, such as Down syndrome, may impair coordination processes required to perform dual-tasks. The objective of this study was to investigate the dual-task effects on postural sway during sit-to-stand movements in typical children and children with Down syndrome in a cross-sectional study. Methods Twenty six typical children (10.2 ± 2.4 years) and 21 with Down syndrome (10.3 ± 2.3 years) performed sit-to-stand in the following conditions: (1) simple task; (2) dual-task bimanual activity (DT-Bim): sit-to-stand while carrying a tray using both hands; (3) dual-task unimanual dominant activity (DT-Uni-Dom): sit-to-stand while holding a plastic cup simulating water using the dominant hand; (4) dual-task unimanual nondominant activity (DT-Uni-Nondom): sit-to-stand movement while holding a plastic cup simulating water. For data analysis, sit-to-stand was divided into three phases: preparation (phase 1), rising (phase 2), and stabilisation (phase 3). The following variables were calculated for each phase: anterior-posterior and medial-lateral amplitude of centre-of-pressure displacement, anterior-posterior and medial-lateral velocity of centre-of-pressure sway and area of centreof-pressure sway. Results Children with Down syndrome showed greater sway than typical children in all sit-to-stand phases. Typical children showed greater anterior-posterior amplitude in phase 2 of sit-to-stand during DT-Uni Nondom compared with DT-Uni Dom. Children with Down syndrome during simple task condition showed greater and faster values sway in phases 2 and 3 of sit-to-stand movement than in DT-Bim activity, DT-Uni Dom activity and DT-Uni Nondom activity. During the condition of DT-Bim activity, these children showed lower anterior-posterior velocity of sway in phase 2 than during DT-Uni Dom activity. Conclusions Children with Down syndrome showed greater postural sway during sit-to-stand than typical children. The addition of a concurrent motor task to sit-to-stand impacted postural sway in different intensities and in different ways across groups. Dualtasks increased body sway in typical children in the DT-Uni Nondom condition compared with dominant one. In children with Down syndrome, dual-tasks decreased body sway, apparently resulting in a postural strategy of stiffness.

Comparison of Lower and Upper Quarter Y Balance Test Performance in Adolescent Students with Borderline Intellectual Functioning Compared to Age- and Sex-Matched Controls

“…This combination of challenges, i.e., divided attention or dual-tasking may be impaired in students with ID. In this regard, children with Down syndrome showed significantly greater postural sway during sit-to-stand phases when concurrent motor tasks, such as holding a plastic cup, as part of a dual-task execution, had to be performed [ 21 ]. Third, the physical activity levels of students with BIF are reported to be lower than those of their typically developed peers [ 18 ].…”

Underlying physiological and biomechanical mechanisms related to postural control of Parkour practitioners: a pilot study

“…Data were normalized by each participants' body weight and height. 27 The Normality and the homogeneity of the data were verified by the Shapiro-Wilk test and the Levene test. Then, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with group (control and Parkour) as factor were conducted for each experimental condition.…”

Association between the level of attention and dual‐task costs on postural sway and cognitive yield in children, adolescents, and young adults

“…Functional demands involving the concomitant performance of postural and cognitive tasks are common in daily routine (Pena et al., 2019). The process of controlling postural stability requires attentional resources (Bucci et al., 2015; Dewar et al, 2017; Palluel et al., 2010).…”

“…This attentional change may create dual‐task interference (Anderson et al., 2011), shifting the system's behavior involved with the task (Pena et al., 2019), changing the performance of one or both tasks, compared to the performance of each task individually (Saxena et al., 2017). Dual‐task interference is measured by dual‐task cost (DTC), defined as the difference in performance scores between single and dual‐tasks (Saxena et al., 2017).…”