4.7 Review

Age-related differences in attentional cost associated with postural dual tasks: Increased recruitment of generic cognitive resources in older adults

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
Volume 37, Issue 8, Pages 1824-1837

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.07.014

Keywords

Aging; Attention; Automatic processing; Balance; Cognitive penetrability; Controlled processing; Controlled/Automatic ratio; Dual task; Elderly; Executive function; Generic interference; Imaging; Motor control; Posture; Postural control; Postural processing; Review; Specific interference; Standing

Funding

  1. Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme
  2. Belgian Science Policy Office [P7/11]
  3. Research Fund KU Leuven [OT/11/071]
  4. FWO Vlaanderen [G.0483.10, G.0721.12, G.0756.10N]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dual-task designs have been used widely to study the degree of automatic and controlled processing involved in postural stability of young and older adults. However, several unexplained discrepancies in the results weaken this literature. To resolve this problem, a careful selection of dual-task studies that met certain methodological criteria are considered with respect to reported interactions of age (young vs. older adults) x task (single vs. dual task) in stable and unstable postural conditions. Our review shows that older adults are able to perform a postural dual task as well as younger adults in stable conditions. However, when the complexity of the postural task is increased by dynamic conditions (surface and surround), performance in postural, concurrent, or both tasks is more affected in older relative to young adults. In light of neuroimaging studies and new conceptual frameworks, these results demonstrate an age-related increase of controlled processing of standing associated with greater intermittent adjustments. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available