↓ Skip to main content

Posture-Motor and Posture-Ideomotor Dual-Tasking: A Putative Marker of Psychomotor Retardation and Depressive Rumination in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Posture-Motor and Posture-Ideomotor Dual-Tasking: A Putative Marker of Psychomotor Retardation and Depressive Rumination in Patients With Major Depressive Disorder
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lyubomir I. Aftanas, Olga M. Bazanova, Nataliya V. Novozhilova

Abstract

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated that the assessment of postural performance may be a potentially reliable and objective marker of the psychomotor retardation (PMR) in the major depressive disorder (MDD). One of the important facets of MDD-related PMR is reflected in disrupted central mechanisms of psychomotor control, heavily influenced by compelling maladaptive depressive rumination. In view of this we designed a research paradigm that included sequential execution of simple single-posture task followed by more challenging divided attention posture tasks, involving concurring motor and ideomotor workloads. Another difficulty dimension assumed executing of all the tasks with eyes open (EO) (easy) and closed (EC) (difficult) conditions. We aimed at investigating the interplay between the severity of MDD, depressive rumination, and efficiency of postural performance. Methods: Compared with 24 age- and body mass index-matched healthy controls (HCs), 26 patients with MDD sequentially executed three experimental tasks: (1) single-posture task of maintaining a quiet stance (ST), (2) actual posture-motor dual task (AMT); and (3) mental/imaginary posture-motor dual task (MMT). All the tasks were performed in the EO and the EC conditions. The primary dependent variable was the amount of kinetic energy (E) expended for the center of pressure deviations (CoPDs), whereas the absolute divided attention cost index showed energy cost to the dual-tasking vs. the single-posture task according to the formula: ΔE = (EDual-task - ESingle-task). Results: The signs of PMR in the MDD group were objectively indexed by deficient posture control in the EC condition along with overall slowness of fine motor and ideomotor activity. Another important and probably more challenging feature of the findings was that the posture deficit manifested in the ST condition was substantially and significantly attenuated in the MMT and AMT performance dual-tasking activity. A multiple linear regression analysis evidenced further that the dual-tasking energy cost (i.e., ΔE) significantly predicted clinical scores of severity of MDD and depressive rumination. Conclusion: The findings allow to suggest that execution of concurrent actual or imaginary fine motor task with closed visual input deallocates attentional resources from compelling maladaptive depressive rumination thereby attenuating severity of absolute dual-tasking energy costs for balance maintenance in patients with MDD. Significance: Quantitative assessment of PMR through measures of the postural performance in dual-tasking may be useful to capture the negative impact of past depressive episodes, optimize the personalized treatment selection, and improve the understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying MDD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Other 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 19 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 18 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 31 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,031,274
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,876
of 7,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,209
of 331,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#48
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 331,431 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.