↓ Skip to main content

The ecological approach to cognitive–motor dual-tasking: findings on the effects of expertise and age

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 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
The ecological approach to cognitive–motor dual-tasking: findings on the effects of expertise and age
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01167
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabine Schaefer

Abstract

The underlying assumption of studies on cognitive-motor dual-tasking is that resources are limited, and when they have to be shared between a cognitive and a motor task, performances will suffer. Resource competition should therefore be particularly pronounced in children, older adults, or people who are just acquiring a new motor skill. The current review summarizes expertise and age comparative studies that have combined a cognitive and a motor task. Expertise studies have often assessed sports performances (e.g., golf putting, soccer dribbling, rugby drills) and have shown that experts are more successful than novices to keep up their performances in dual-task situations. The review also presents age-comparative studies that have used walking (on narrow tracks or on a treadmill) as the motor task. Older adults often show higher costs than young adults, and they tend to prioritize the motor domain. These findings are discussed in relation to the ecological approach to dual-task research originally introduced by Li et al. (2005). The approach proposes to study ecologically valid dual-task situations, and always to investigate dual-task costs for both domains (cognitive and motor performance) in order to assess potential tradeoffs. In addition, task difficulties should be individually adjusted, and differential-emphasis instructions should be included in the study design.

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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 197 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 17%
Student > Master 34 17%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 45 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 46 22%
Sports and Recreations 40 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 8%
Neuroscience 16 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 55 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 October 2014.
All research outputs
#18,279,905
of 23,479,361 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,363
of 31,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,434
of 257,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#314
of 373 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,479,361 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,311 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 257,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 373 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.