J Sport Rehabil. 2021 Jan 23;30(5):774-785. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2020-0310.
Laboratory-based movement assessments are commonly performed without cognitive stimuli (ie, single-task) despite the simultaneous cognitive processing and movement (ie, dual task) demands required during sport. Cognitive loading may critically alter human movement and be an important consideration for truly assessing functional movement and understanding injury risk in the laboratory, but limited investigations exist.
To comprehensively examine and compare kinematics and kinetics between single- and dual-task functional movement among healthy participants while controlling for sex.
Cross-sectional study.
Laboratory. Patients (or Other Participants): Forty-one healthy, physically active participants (49% female; 22.5 ± 2.1 y; 172.5 ± 11.9 cm; 71.0 ± 13.7 kg) enrolled in and completed the study.
INTERVENTION(S): All participants completed the functional movement protocol under single- and dual-task (subtracting by 6s or 7s) conditions in a randomized order. Participants jumped forward from a 30-cm tall box and performed (1) maximum vertical jump landings and (2) dominant and (3) nondominant leg, single-leg 45° cuts after landing.
The authors used mixed-model analysis of variances (α = .05) to compare peak hip, knee, and ankle joint angles (degrees) and moments (N·m/BW) in the sagittal and frontal planes, and peak vertical ground reaction force (N/BW) and vertical impulse (Ns/BW) between cognitive conditions and sex.
Dual-task resulted in greater peak vertical ground reaction force compared with single-task during jump landing (mean difference = 0.06 N/BW; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01 to 0.12; P = .025) but less force during dominant leg cutting (mean difference = -0.08 N/BW; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.02; P = .015). Less hip-flexion torque occurred during dual task than single task (mean difference = -0.09 N/BW; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.02). No other outcomes were different between single and dual task (P ≥ .053).
Slight, but potentially important, kinematic and kinetic differences were observed between single- and dual-task that may have implications for functional movement assessments and injury risk research. More research examining how various cognitive and movement tasks interact to alter functional movement among pathological populations is warranted before clinical implementation.
尽管运动中需要同时进行认知处理和运动（即双重任务），但实验室中通常还是进行不涉及认知刺激的基于实验室的运动评估（即单一任务）。认知负荷可能会严重改变人体运动，并且是在实验室中真正评估功能运动和理解受伤风险的重要考虑因素，但目前相关研究还很有限。
在控制性别因素的情况下，全面检查和比较健康参与者在单一任务和双重任务功能性运动中的运动学和动力学。
横断面研究。
实验室。
患者（或其他参与者）：41 名健康、活跃的参与者（49%为女性；22.5±2.1 岁；172.5±11.9cm；71.0±13.7kg）入组并完成了研究。
所有参与者均以随机顺序在单一任务和双重任务（减去 6s 或 7s）条件下完成功能性运动方案。参与者从 30cm 高的箱子上向前跳跃，并在落地后进行（1）最大垂直跳跃着陆和（2）优势腿和（3）非优势腿，单腿 45° 切割。
作者使用方差混合模型分析（α=.05）比较认知条件和性别之间矢状面和额状面的髋关节、膝关节和踝关节峰值角度（度）和峰值力矩（N·m/BW），以及垂直地面反作用力峰值（N/BW）和垂直冲量（Ns/BW）。
与单任务相比，双任务在跳跃着陆时导致更大的垂直地面反作用力峰值（平均差异=0.06N/BW；95%置信区间[CI]，0.01 至 0.12；P=.025），但在优势腿切割时的力更小（平均差异=-0.08N/BW；95%CI，-0.14 至-0.02；P=.015）。与单任务相比，双任务时髋关节屈肌力矩更小（平均差异=-0.09N/BW；95%CI，-0.17 至-0.02）。在单任务和双任务之间，其他结果没有差异（P≥.053）。
在单一任务和双重任务之间观察到了轻微但可能重要的运动学和动力学差异，这可能对功能性运动评估和受伤风险研究具有重要意义。在临床实施之前，需要进行更多研究来检验不同认知和运动任务如何相互作用，以改变病理性人群的功能性运动。
