Table 1: Characteristics of studies utilizing walking tasks during dual tasking.

Study IDAuthorPublication yearSample sizeEDSSMotor outcomeCognitive taskQuality

A Kramer et al. [24]2014613.0 ± 1.0aWalking velocityQuestions (How many sides on a cube?)High
BLearmonth et al. [25]2014614.0 (2.8)bWalking velocityAlternating letters (A, C, E)High
CMotl et al. [26]2014823.5 (3.0)b,dWalking velocityWord List GenerationHigh
DSosnoff et al. [27]2014964.5 (3.0)bWalking velocityWord list generationHigh
EAllali et al. [28] 2014251.9 ± 1.0aWalking velocityWord list generation/countingHigh
FAllali et al. [29]201492.9 ± 1.1aWalking velocityWord list generation/countingMedium
GWajda et al. [30]2013336.0 (2.0)b,dWalking velocityWord list generationHigh
HWajda et al. [31]2013102.5–4.0cWalking velocityWord list generationMedium
IGunn et al. [32]20131483.5–6.5cWalking velocitySerial 7’sHigh
JNogueria et al. [33]2013120.0–1.5cWalking velocitySerial 3’sMedium
KNogueria et al. [34]20131202.7 ± 2.0aWalking velocitySerial 3’sHigh
LSosnoff et al. [35]2011772.0–6.5cWalking velocityWord list generationHigh
MKalron et al. [36] 2010521.7 ± 0.2aWalking velocityWord list generationHigh
NHamilton et al. [37]2009182.7 ± 1.6aWalking velocityFixed and titrated digit span recallHigh

Notes: aMean ± SD; bmedian (IQR); crange; dself-reported.