4.5 Review

The use of Motor and Cognitive Dual-Task quantitative assessment on subjects with mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mad.2020.111393

关键词

Motor-cognitive interference; Motor control; Dementia assessment; Mild cognitive impairment; Motor and cognitive dual-task

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review highlights the importance of identifying valid and noninvasive markers for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) using quantitative Motor and Cognitive Dual-Task (MCDT) with the aid of various technologies. The study emphasizes the potential clinical landmarks, risk prediction, and intervention optimization that MCDT can provide for MCI patients. However, there is still a need for standardization and harmonization of protocols in this area.
Dementia and Alzheimer's Disease (AD) represent a health emergency. The identification of valid and noninvasive markers to identify people with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is profoundly advocated. This review outlines the use of quantitative Motor and Cognitive Dual-Task (MCDT) on MCI, by technologies aid. We describe the framework and the most valuable researches, displaying the adopted protocols, and the available technologies. PubMed Central, Web of Science, and Scopus were inspected between January 2010 and May 2020. 1939 articles were found in the initial quest. Exclusion criteria allowed the selection of the most relevant papers; 38 papers were included. The articles, regarding four technological solutions wearable sensors, personal devices, optokinetic systems, and electronic walkways, are organized into three categories: Quantitative MCDT, MCDT Inspired by Neuropsychological Test, and MCDT for MCI Stimulation. MCDT might furnish clinical landmarks, supplying aid for disease stratication, risk prediction, and intervention optimization. Such protocols could foster the use of data mining and machine learning techniques. Notwithstanding, there is still a need to standardize and harmonize such protocols.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据