Cargando…

How does a 4-week motor–cognitive training affect choice reaction, dynamic balance and cognitive performance ability? A randomized controlled trial in well-trained, young, healthy participants

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the potential effects of a 4-week motor–cognitive dual-task training on cognitive and motor function as well as exercise motivation in young, healthy, and active adults. METHODS: A total of 26 participants (age 25 ± 2 years; 10 women) were randomly allocated to ei...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Niederer, Daniel, Plaumann, Ulrike, Seitz, Tanja, Wallner, Franziska, Wilke, Jan, Engeroff, Tobias, Giesche, Florian, Vogt, Lutz, Banzer, Winfried
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6693023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31448120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312119870020
_version_ 1783443633394941952
author Niederer, Daniel
Plaumann, Ulrike
Seitz, Tanja
Wallner, Franziska
Wilke, Jan
Engeroff, Tobias
Giesche, Florian
Vogt, Lutz
Banzer, Winfried
author_facet Niederer, Daniel
Plaumann, Ulrike
Seitz, Tanja
Wallner, Franziska
Wilke, Jan
Engeroff, Tobias
Giesche, Florian
Vogt, Lutz
Banzer, Winfried
author_sort Niederer, Daniel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the potential effects of a 4-week motor–cognitive dual-task training on cognitive and motor function as well as exercise motivation in young, healthy, and active adults. METHODS: A total of 26 participants (age 25 ± 2 years; 10 women) were randomly allocated to either the intervention group or a control group. The intervention group performed a motor–cognitive training (3×/week), while the participants of the control group received no intervention. Before and after the intervention period of 4 weeks, all participants underwent cognitive (d2-test, Trail Making Test) and motor (lower-body choice reaction test and time to stabilization test) assessments. Following each of the 12 workouts, self-reported assessments (rating of perceived exertion, enjoyment and pleasant anticipation of the next training session) were done. Analyses of covariances and 95% confidence intervals plotting for between group and time effects were performed. RESULTS: Data from 24 participants were analysed. No pre- to post-intervention improvement nor a between-group difference regarding motor outcomes (choice-reaction: F = 0.5; time to stabilization test: F = 0.7; p > 0.05) occurred. No significant training-induced changes were found in the cognitive tests (D2: F = 0.02; Trail Making Test A: F = 0.24; Trail Making Test B: F = 0.002; p > 0.05). Both enjoyment and anticipation of the next workout were rated as high. DISCUSSION: The neuro-motor training appears to have no significant effects on motor and cognitive function in healthy, young and physically active adults. This might be explained in part by the participants’ very high motor and cognitive abilities, the comparably low training intensity or the programme duration. The high degree of exercise enjoyment, however, may qualify the training as a facilitator to initiate and maintain regular physical activity. The moderate to vigorous intensity levels further point towards potential health-enhancing cardiorespiratory effects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6693023
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66930232019-08-23 How does a 4-week motor–cognitive training affect choice reaction, dynamic balance and cognitive performance ability? A randomized controlled trial in well-trained, young, healthy participants Niederer, Daniel Plaumann, Ulrike Seitz, Tanja Wallner, Franziska Wilke, Jan Engeroff, Tobias Giesche, Florian Vogt, Lutz Banzer, Winfried SAGE Open Med Original Article BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the potential effects of a 4-week motor–cognitive dual-task training on cognitive and motor function as well as exercise motivation in young, healthy, and active adults. METHODS: A total of 26 participants (age 25 ± 2 years; 10 women) were randomly allocated to either the intervention group or a control group. The intervention group performed a motor–cognitive training (3×/week), while the participants of the control group received no intervention. Before and after the intervention period of 4 weeks, all participants underwent cognitive (d2-test, Trail Making Test) and motor (lower-body choice reaction test and time to stabilization test) assessments. Following each of the 12 workouts, self-reported assessments (rating of perceived exertion, enjoyment and pleasant anticipation of the next training session) were done. Analyses of covariances and 95% confidence intervals plotting for between group and time effects were performed. RESULTS: Data from 24 participants were analysed. No pre- to post-intervention improvement nor a between-group difference regarding motor outcomes (choice-reaction: F = 0.5; time to stabilization test: F = 0.7; p > 0.05) occurred. No significant training-induced changes were found in the cognitive tests (D2: F = 0.02; Trail Making Test A: F = 0.24; Trail Making Test B: F = 0.002; p > 0.05). Both enjoyment and anticipation of the next workout were rated as high. DISCUSSION: The neuro-motor training appears to have no significant effects on motor and cognitive function in healthy, young and physically active adults. This might be explained in part by the participants’ very high motor and cognitive abilities, the comparably low training intensity or the programme duration. The high degree of exercise enjoyment, however, may qualify the training as a facilitator to initiate and maintain regular physical activity. The moderate to vigorous intensity levels further point towards potential health-enhancing cardiorespiratory effects. SAGE Publications 2019-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC6693023/ /pubmed/31448120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312119870020 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Article
Niederer, Daniel
Plaumann, Ulrike
Seitz, Tanja
Wallner, Franziska
Wilke, Jan
Engeroff, Tobias
Giesche, Florian
Vogt, Lutz
Banzer, Winfried
How does a 4-week motor–cognitive training affect choice reaction, dynamic balance and cognitive performance ability? A randomized controlled trial in well-trained, young, healthy participants
title How does a 4-week motor–cognitive training affect choice reaction, dynamic balance and cognitive performance ability? A randomized controlled trial in well-trained, young, healthy participants
title_full How does a 4-week motor–cognitive training affect choice reaction, dynamic balance and cognitive performance ability? A randomized controlled trial in well-trained, young, healthy participants
title_fullStr How does a 4-week motor–cognitive training affect choice reaction, dynamic balance and cognitive performance ability? A randomized controlled trial in well-trained, young, healthy participants
title_full_unstemmed How does a 4-week motor–cognitive training affect choice reaction, dynamic balance and cognitive performance ability? A randomized controlled trial in well-trained, young, healthy participants
title_short How does a 4-week motor–cognitive training affect choice reaction, dynamic balance and cognitive performance ability? A randomized controlled trial in well-trained, young, healthy participants
title_sort how does a 4-week motor–cognitive training affect choice reaction, dynamic balance and cognitive performance ability? a randomized controlled trial in well-trained, young, healthy participants
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6693023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31448120
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2050312119870020
work_keys_str_mv AT niedererdaniel howdoesa4weekmotorcognitivetrainingaffectchoicereactiondynamicbalanceandcognitiveperformanceabilityarandomizedcontrolledtrialinwelltrainedyounghealthyparticipants
AT plaumannulrike howdoesa4weekmotorcognitivetrainingaffectchoicereactiondynamicbalanceandcognitiveperformanceabilityarandomizedcontrolledtrialinwelltrainedyounghealthyparticipants
AT seitztanja howdoesa4weekmotorcognitivetrainingaffectchoicereactiondynamicbalanceandcognitiveperformanceabilityarandomizedcontrolledtrialinwelltrainedyounghealthyparticipants
AT wallnerfranziska howdoesa4weekmotorcognitivetrainingaffectchoicereactiondynamicbalanceandcognitiveperformanceabilityarandomizedcontrolledtrialinwelltrainedyounghealthyparticipants
AT wilkejan howdoesa4weekmotorcognitivetrainingaffectchoicereactiondynamicbalanceandcognitiveperformanceabilityarandomizedcontrolledtrialinwelltrainedyounghealthyparticipants
AT engerofftobias howdoesa4weekmotorcognitivetrainingaffectchoicereactiondynamicbalanceandcognitiveperformanceabilityarandomizedcontrolledtrialinwelltrainedyounghealthyparticipants
AT giescheflorian howdoesa4weekmotorcognitivetrainingaffectchoicereactiondynamicbalanceandcognitiveperformanceabilityarandomizedcontrolledtrialinwelltrainedyounghealthyparticipants
AT vogtlutz howdoesa4weekmotorcognitivetrainingaffectchoicereactiondynamicbalanceandcognitiveperformanceabilityarandomizedcontrolledtrialinwelltrainedyounghealthyparticipants
AT banzerwinfried howdoesa4weekmotorcognitivetrainingaffectchoicereactiondynamicbalanceandcognitiveperformanceabilityarandomizedcontrolledtrialinwelltrainedyounghealthyparticipants