↓ Skip to main content

Dual-Tasking in Multiple Sclerosis – Implications for a Cognitive Screening Instrument

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dual-Tasking in Multiple Sclerosis – Implications for a Cognitive Screening Instrument
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Beste, Moritz Mückschel, Madlen Paucke, Tjalf Ziemssen

Abstract

The monitoring of cognitive functions is central to the assessment and consecutive management of multiple sclerosis (MS). Though, especially cognitive processes that are central to everyday behavior like dual-tasking are often neglected. We examined dual-task performance using a psychological-refractory period (PRP) task inN= 21 patients and healthy controls and conducted standard neuropsychological tests. In dual-tasking, MS patients committed more erroneous responses when dual-tasking was difficult. In easier conditions, performance of MS patients did not differ to controls. Interestingly, the response times were generally not affected by the difficulty of the dual task, showing that the deficits observed do not reflect simple motor deficits or deficits in information processing speed but point out deficits in executive control functions and response selection in particular. Effect sizes were considerably large withd∼0.80 in mild affected patients and the achieved power was above 99%. There are cognitive control and dual tasking deficits in MS that are not attributable to simple motor speed deficits. Scaling of the difficulty of dual-tasking makes the test applied suitable for a wide variety of MS-patients and may complement neuropsychological assessments in clinical care and research setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 22 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 18%
Neuroscience 9 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 21 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,312,757
of 25,335,657 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,081
of 7,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,138
of 453,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#23
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,335,657 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 453,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.