Moving While Thinking or Thinking While Moving? Comparison of the Cognitive, Dual-task and Physical Effects of 6 Programs With Older Adults
Moving While Thinking or Thinking While Moving? Comparison of the Cognitive, Dual-task and Physical Effects of 6 Programs With Older Adults
While the association of physical and/or motor and/or cognitive components with training can generate synergistic effects and thus create an efficient cognitive enrichment program, very few studies have focused on finding an optimal combined program for older adults. According to the model of Herold and his colleagues, there are two modalities of simultaneous combined training: Thinking While Moving (TwM), when the additional cognitive task is not linked to the motor task, and Moving While Thinking (MwT), when the cognitive task is integrated into the motor task. They assume the latter approach is the most promising for improving cognitive reserve. Nevertheless, to the investigators' knowledge, only one study has compared these two modalities in older adults and none has broadened the question by comparing several MwT trainings.
The goal of this interventional study will be to compare the cognitive, dual-task, and physical effects of 6 physical and/or cognitive programs in healthy but inactive older adults. The main questions it will aims to answer are:
Cognitive, dual-task, and physical pre-tests (before the program), post-tests (after the program), and retention tests (3 months after the end of the program) will be realized to evaluate the effects of the programs.
All subjects must give their informed consent for inclusion before they participate in the study. The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol has been approved by the University Paris Saclay Ethics Committee of Research (N°462) who stated that a Protection of Persons Committee was not necessary. The sample size calculation was performed using G. Power. The investigators calculated a sample size sufficient to detect small effect sizes (η2 = .04). Therefore, f = 0.20, α = 0.05, p = 0.95, power = 0.95, were chosen to favor clinically significant effect sizes. To test the main hypotheses of the present study, 133 participants are required. To compensate for possible dropouts, 35 more participants will be included. The 7 groups will be composed of 24 participants each, for a total of 168 participants.
The training interventions will be carried out in different places and at different times:
Statistical analysis plan: Data will be analyzed with JASP software. The statistical analysis will allow us to determine the effects of the 7 different groups on the cognitive, DT, and physical functions. The analysis will include only subjects who completed all the pre- and post-tests. Data from the pre-tests, post-tests, and retention tests will be presented using descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) to describe the participants' characteristics and performances on assessments. Before performing the inferential statistical tests, all relevant hypotheses will be tested, and if they are met, statistical analysis will be conducted. For primary and secondary measures, repeated ANOVA will be used to test the interaction between pre-test, post-test, retention test x training groups. If a significant interaction is found, a Bonferroni post-hoc test will be performed. Effects sizes will be calculated to study the power of the results.
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
-