Review Article
Cognitive-Motor Interference in Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review of Evidence, Correlates, and Consequences
Table 1
Characteristics of studies utilizing walking tasks during dual tasking.
| Study ID | Author | Publication year | Sample size | EDSS | Motor outcome | Cognitive task | Quality |
| A |
Kramer et al. [24] | 2014 | 61 | 3.0 ± 1.0a | Walking velocity | Questions (How many sides on a cube?) | High | B | Learmonth et al. [25] | 2014 | 61 | 4.0 (2.8)b | Walking velocity | Alternating letters (A, C, E) | High | C | Motl et al. [26] | 2014 | 82 | 3.5 (3.0)b,d | Walking velocity | Word List Generation | High | D | Sosnoff et al. [27] | 2014 | 96 | 4.5 (3.0)b | Walking velocity | Word list generation | High | E | Allali et al. [28] |
2014 | 25 | 1.9 ± 1.0a | Walking velocity | Word list generation/counting | High | F | Allali et al. [29] | 2014 | 9 | 2.9 ± 1.1a | Walking velocity | Word list generation/counting | Medium | G | Wajda et al. [30] | 2013 | 33 | 6.0 (2.0)b,d | Walking velocity | Word list generation | High | H | Wajda et al. [31] | 2013 | 10 | 2.5–4.0c | Walking velocity | Word list generation | Medium | I | Gunn et al. [32] | 2013 | 148 | 3.5–6.5c | Walking velocity | Serial 7’s | High | J | Nogueria et al. [33] | 2013 | 12 | 0.0–1.5c | Walking velocity | Serial 3’s | Medium | K | Nogueria et al. [34] | 2013 | 120 | 2.7 ± 2.0a | Walking velocity | Serial 3’s | High | L | Sosnoff et al. [35] | 2011 | 77 | 2.0–6.5c | Walking velocity | Word list generation | High | M | Kalron et al. [36] |
2010 | 52 | 1.7 ± 0.2a | Walking velocity | Word list generation | High | N | Hamilton et al. [37] | 2009 | 18 | 2.7 ± 1.6a | Walking velocity | Fixed and titrated digit span recall | High |
|
|
Notes: aMean ± SD; bmedian (IQR); crange; dself-reported.
|