Next Article in Journal
Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Healthy Adults—Possible Applications in Health Care, Wellness, and Sports
Next Article in Special Issue
A Multi-Modal Analysis of the Freezing of Gait Phenomenon in Parkinson’s Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of Lower-Limb Motor Tasks via Brain–Computer Interfaces: A Topical Overview
Previous Article in Special Issue
Statistical Analysis and Kinematic Assessment of Upper Limb Reaching Task in Parkinson’s Disease
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sensors
Volume 22
Issue 5
10.3390/s22052029
sensors-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fear of Falling Does Not Influence Dual-Task Gait Costs in People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study

by
Tino Prell
1,*,
Manuela Uhlig
2,
Steffen Derlien
3,
Walter Maetzler
4 and
Hannah M. Zipprich
2
1
Department of Geriatrics, Halle University Hospital, 06120 Halle, Germany
2
Department of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, 07743 Jena, Germany
3
Institute for Physiotherapy, Jena University Hospital, 07743 Jena, Germany
4
Department of Neurology, Kiel University, 24105 Kiel, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2022, 22(5), 2029; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22052029
Submission received: 26 January 2022 / Revised: 20 February 2022 / Accepted: 1 March 2022 / Published: 5 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensors and Sensing Technology Applied in Parkinson Disease)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cognitive deficits and fear of falling (FOF) can both influence gait patterns in Parkinson’s disease (PD). While cognitive deficits contribute to gait changes under dual-task (DT) conditions, it is unclear if FOF also influences changes to gait while performing a cognitive task. Here, we aimed to explore the association between FOF and DT costs in PD, we additionally describe associations between FOF, cognition, and gait parameters under single-task and DT. In 40 PD patients, motor symptoms (MDS-revised version of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale, Hoehn and Yahr), FOF (Falls Efficacy Scale International), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were assessed. Spatiotemporal gait parameters were recorded with a validated mobile gait analysis system with inertial measurement units at each foot while patients walked in a 50 m hallway at their preferred speed under single-task and DT conditions. Under single-task conditions, stride length (β = 0.798) and spatial variability (β = 0.202) were associated with FOF (adjusted R2 = 0.19, p < 0.001) while the MoCA was only weakly associated with temporal variability (adjusted R2 = 0.05, p < 0.001). Under DT conditions, speed, stride length, and cadence decreased, while spatial variability, temporal variability, and stride duration increased with the largest effect size for speed. DT costs of stride length (β = 0.42) and age (β = 0.58) explained 18% of the MoCA variance. However, FOF was not associated with the DT costs of gait parameters. Gait difficulties in PD may exacerbate when cognitive tasks are added during walking. However, FOF does not appear to have a relevant effect on dual-task costs of gait.

1. Introduction

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is characterized by a plethora of motor and non-motor symptoms that affect activities of daily living [1,2]. In particular, gait deficits are common in people with PD. PD gait is usually characterized by reduced step length, shuffling, delayed gait initiation, reduced speed, and—in later disease stages—by freezing of gait (FOG) [3,4,5]. Walking is a complex task and requires appropriate cognitive processes [6]. However, many people with PD develop cognitive deficits or PD dementia (PDD), including executive dysfunction, impaired processing speed, attentional, and language abilities [7]. A systematic review showed a direct association between the severity of cognitive impairment and gait deficits in people with dementia (i.e., walking speed decreased with progressing severity of dementia) [8], highlighting that the association between cognition and gait is not only relevant for people with PD. In line with this observation, gait deficits in PD exacerbate when cognitive tasks are added during walking (dual-task, DT) [9,10,11,12,13]. In particular, gait speed, stride length, gait asymmetry, and stride-to-stride variability are negatively influenced by DT in PD [12]. This negative effect of DT is often called DT cost, which is defined as the percentage change between single-task (ST) and DT gait parameters [14]. DT costs occur regularly, regardless of the mean level of ST gait speed and the type of DT [13,15].
Fear of falling (FOF) is a common and serious problem in patients with PD, which influences gait patterns [16,17]. FOF has been defined as ongoing concern about falling, low fall-related self-efficacy, and activity avoidance [18]. FOF restricts mobility, social participation, and quality of life [19,20]. FOF predicts future falls, and therefore, it is relevant to consider FOF for fall risk assessment in PD [21,22,23,24]. FOF in PD often arises from previous falls, near fall experiences, and disease progression [21,25]. In PD, FOF was reported to be associated with distinct motor function tests, turning metrics, impaired postural control, and fear of movement and activity resulting from a feeling of vulnerability to painful injury or re-injury [21,23,26,27], but also with gait speed, stride length, and functional balance performance [21,28,29,30]. Thus, while FOF affects normal gait (ST condition), it is less clear whether it can also modulate DT walking. Or, to paraphrase, it is currently unclear whether PD patients with high FOF have higher DT costs than those with low FOF. In a study of 24 de novo PD patients, DT gait speed was not influenced by FOF [31]. In contrast, in another study of PD patients with a mean disease duration of eight years, the variance of DT gait speed (walk and carry a tray) was partially explained by FOF; however, DT costs were not related to FOF [32].
In summary, in PD, normal walking (ST) is subject to numerous motor and non-motor influences (e.g., FOF), and cognitive impairments have been associated with DT walking deficits in PD. However, the extent to which DT walking is additionally influenced by FOF is poorly understood. With this study, we aimed to explore the association between FOF and DT costs in PD. We hypothesized that FOF increases DT costs independent from cognitive function. For this purpose, we used a mobile gait analysis system in order to provide reliable and objective data about gait characteristics [33,34]. These findings can help to develop tailored interventions for PD patients to prevent falls due to gait problems and cognitive deficits.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Subjects

This cross-sectional study recruited PD patients from the ward of the Department of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, between January 2018 and July 2018. All patients gave written informed consent. The study was approved by local Ethics Committee (and has been performed in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Inclusion criteria were as follows: PD diagnosis according to Movement Disorder Society (MDS) diagnosis criteria, admission to hospital for PD multimodal complex treatment [35,36], able to walk 50 m without personal assistance, absence of severe dyskinesias affecting gait, adequate vision and/or hearing or successful use of corrective aids if required. Exclusion criteria were as follows: non-PD-related gait impairment, spasticity, cerebrovascular disorders, neuropathy, deep brain stimulation, levodopa/carbidopa enteral infusion, and apomorphine infusion. During the study period, 52 people with PD were admitted to the PD complex treatment in our hospital and screened for eligibility. Finally, 40 participants fulfilled inclusion criteria and were analyzed.

2.2. Assessments

All assessments were conducted during the medication ON phase at the beginning of the PD multimodal complex treatment. The following explanatory parameters were collected:
  • Personal: age (metric, years), sex (nominal, male/female).
  • Motor function: MDS-sponsored revision of the UPDRS III (MDS-UPDRS III, metric) [37], Hoehn and Yahr stage (multi-nominal, stage I to V), timed-up-and-go test (metric, sec), disease duration (metric, years), history of falls within the previous 6 months (nominal, yes or no), freezing of gait (nominal, present or absent), use of walking aid (nominal, yes or no).
  • Cognition: Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA, metric) [38]. Some patients had a MoCA score < 21 relating to PD dementia, however, this level of cognitive function was sufficient for their daily living (no legal guardian) [39].
  • Mood: Beck’s depression inventory (BDI) II to measure degree of depressive symptoms (metric). FOF was measured using the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I, metric) (α = 0.94) [40]. The FES-I is a self-report questionnaire, where the respondents answer how concerned they are about the possibility of falling in relation to 16 different activities (1 = not at all concerned to 4 = very concerned). The total FES-I ranges from 16 to 64, with higher values indicating more concerns about falling. FES-I total scores additionally were categorized into three groups: low (16–19 points), moderate (20–27), and high concerns about falling (28–64), according to previous works [41,42].

2.3. Gait Analysis and Test Protocol

Single-task: Participants were instructed to walk in preferred speed on a straight and flat 50 m-long hallway at the neurological inpatient clinic and were asked to turn at the respective end of the hallway without stopping. All participants were guarded by a research assistant, who walked behind the patient to prevent falls. Spatiotemporal gait parameters were automatically recorded by a validated mobile gait analysis system (RehaGait®, HASOMED GmbH, Magdeburg, Germany) [43,44]. RehaGait® consists of two inertial sensors attached to the shoes; it streams raw data to a smart device application for real-time gait parameter calculation. A rule- and threshold-based pattern recognition algorithm was used to detect gait events (heel strike, full contact, heel off, toe off) [45], and a zero velocity assumption at full contact was used to minimize sensors integration drifts [46] For the analysis, the initial stride and all turning strides, including the stride before and after every turn, were excluded. The first 25 strides not excluded by the algorithm were used for this analysis.
DT: The assessments were repeated under DT condition (continue a combination of letters and numbers in chronological order and announce it aloud while walking, starting with A–1, B–2, C–3, etc.).
DT costs for gait parameters were calculated by: ((DT gait parameter–Single task gait parameter)/Single gait parameter) × 100 [47].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The SPSS statistical computer package (version 25.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) and JASP (version 0.16) were used for all statistical analyses. Prior to statistical analysis, data were checked for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk’s Test (p < 0.05). No outliers were removed. Descriptive analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics. Correlations were tested using Pearson’s correlation for normal distribution and Spearman’s correlation for non-normal distributed data. Groups were compared using one-way ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis. To compare gait characteristics with and without DT, paired t-test or Wilcoxon test for paired samples were used. Finally, to determine factors associated with FES-I, MoCA or DT costs we used stepwise multiple linear regression or best subset regression (AIC).
Because also people with MCI or PDD were included, consistency and validity measures were calculated for the self-reported FES-I. Internal consistency of the FES-I was evaluated using the Cronbach’s coefficient α. Internal consistency was considered adequate if Cronbach’s coefficient α values were >0.70. Convergent validity was measured by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficient between FES-I and fall risk questionnaire. The Cronbach’s alpha of the FES-I in the normal cognition group (α = 0.945) was comparable to the MCI/PDD group (α = 0.944). The Spearman correlations between the FES-I and fall risk questionnaire did not differ between the group with normal cognition (r = 0.855, p = 0.001) and the MCI/PDD group (r = 0.734, p < 0.001) (Fisher’s z = 0.834, p = 0.40). Therefore, the self-report FES-I is valid and sound even in the presence of cognitive deficits.
Assuming a moderate effect of FOF on DT costs (d = 0.5), the sample size calculation revealed that 36 samples are necessary to achieve a significant result in one-sided t-test with power = 0.9 and alpha = 0.05.
The significance level for all analyses was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptives

Detailed clinical characteristics of participants are given in Table 1.
According to the FES-I, 15.0% reported low concerns, 27.5% reported moderate concerns, and 57.5% reported great concerns about falling. People with higher FOF were more frequently in higher H&Y stages and had more often FOG (Supplement Table S1).
According to the MoCA, 27.5% had normal cognition, 30% had MCI, and 42.5% had PDD. Poorer cognitive function was associated with severe motor impairment as indicated by higher MDS-UPDRS III (Supplement Table S2). Comparing the MoCA subscores between people with normal (≥26 points) and impaired cognition (<26) revealed lower subscores in the MoCA subcategories “visuospatial/executive” (p  <  0.001; ε2  =  0.377), “language” (p  <  0.001; ε2  =  0.363), “abstraction” (p  =  0.022; ε2  =  0.141), and “memory” (p  <  0.001; ε2  =  0.299) in cognitively impaired people, whereas no difference was observed for categories “naming” (p  =  0.287; ε2  =  0.024), “attention” (p  =  0.116; ε2  =  0.066), and “orientation” (p = 0.234, ε2 = 0.0384) between groups (Kruskal−Wallis)

3.2. Gait Parameters Single-Task (ST)

We first describe how gait parameters were associated with the FES-I and MoCA under ST conditions. Gait parameters during normal walking/ST are given in Table 2. Stride length (p = 0.009), speed (p = 0.028), toe clearance (p = 0.05), and temporal variability (p = 0.001) differed between people with low, moderate and high FOF (Supplement Figure S1). In the univariate analyses, the FES-I correlated with stride length (r =−0.42, p = 0.006), speed (r =−0.43, p = 0.005), and toe clearance (r = −0.35, p = 0.029), but not with stride duration, cadence, spatial variability and temporal variability (Supplement Figure S2).
Multicollinearity was observed for stride length−speed and stride duration−cadence as indicated by a variance inflation factor above 10. Thus, only temporal variability, spatial variability, toe clearance, stride length, and stride duration were used as gait parameters in the following analyses. After entering these five gait parameters as independent variables into a linear regression on the FES-I (dependent variable), stride length (coefficient = −33.1, β = 0.798, p = 0.003) and spatial variability (coefficient = −0.72, β = 0.202, p = 0.11) were associated with FES-I (adjusted R2 = 0.19, p < 0.001) (stepwise forward selection, AIC).
In terms of cognitive function, no between-group differences were found for the gait parameters assessed. In the univariate analyses, the MoCA only correlated with temporal variability (r = 0.32, p = 0.047) (Figure 2). Temporal variability explained only 5% of the MoCA variance (p < 0.001). The MoCA subcategory “visuospatial/executive” correlated with stride length (r = 0.323, p = 0.048), spatial variability (r = 0.411, p = 0.010), and temporal variability (r = 0.375, p = 0.020); “abstraction” correlated with stride length (r = 0.342, p = 0.036) and speed (r = 0.359, p = 0.027), whereas “attention”, “language”, “memory”, “orientation” and “naming” did not correlate with gait parameters.

3.3. Gait Parameters under Dual-Task (DT)

In a second step, we describe how gait parameters change under DT conditions. During the DT condition, participants walked slower with shorter steps. Speed, stride length, and cadence decreased, while spatial variability, temporal variability, stride duration increased under DT with the largest effect size for speed. Toe clearance remained unchanged during DT (Table 2, Figure 1). DT costs of each gait parameter are given in Table 2.

3.4. Association between FES-I and DT Costs

Finally, we explored the association between DT costs, FES-I, and the MoCA. DT costs of gait parameters did not significantly differ between people with low, middle, and high FOF according to the FES-I (Kruskal–Wallis, p > 0.05), and DT costs of gait parameters did not significantly correlate with the FES-I. Accordingly, DT costs of gait parameters explained none of the FES-I variance based on the given R2 value. As illustrated in Figure 2, the relationship between FES-I and DT costs differed depending on cognitive state. In people with normal cognitive function (MoCA > 26) the FES-I correlated not significantly (r = −0.265, p = 0.43) with DT cost of speed and in people with MCI or PDD the FES-I correlated non significantly only weakly positive (r = 0.193, p = 0.315) with DT cost of speed. However, these findings have to be interpreted cautiously, due to the lower sample size in the normal cognition group.
The relationship between FES-I and DT costs for speed differed depending on cognitive state. In people with a MoCA > 26 the FES-I correlated not significantly negatively (r = −0.265, p = 0.43) with DT cost of speed. In people with poorer cognitive function (mild cognitive impairment, MCI or Parkinson’s disease dementia, PDD) the FES-I correlated non-significantly only weakly positive (r = 0.193, p = 0.315) with DT cost of speed.
Of note, there were no significant group effects between MoCA groups (normal, MCI, PDD) in DT costs of the gait parameters (Kruskal–Wallis, p > 0.05). There was a weak correlation between DT cost of stride length and MoCA (r = 0.317, p = 0.046). In the linear regression, DT costs of stride length (coefficient = 0.077, p = 0.046) explained 8% of the MoCA variance (p < 0.001, best subset regression, AIC). After correction for age, disease duration and BDI, the DT costs of stride length (β = 0.42, p = 0.047) and age (β = 0.58. p = 0.02) remained associated with the MoCA (p < 0.01, corrected R2 = 0.18, best subset regression, AIC).

4. Discussion

In this study, we compared gait spatiotemporal and variability measures, cognitive, and FOF measures in terms of ST and DT walking conditions in people with PD.
The majority of our participants reported various degrees of FOF and had cognitive deficits according to the MoCA. This is not surprising because non-motor symptoms, such as depression, anxiety, and cognitive decline, are common in PD [5]. We first analyzed gait parameters under normal walking/ST conditions in order to better situate our results within the existing literature. During ST walking, we found that FOF-related gait was mainly associated with shorter stride length (and correspondingly decreased speed). This agrees with the study of 79 PD patients by Bryant et al., who found that gait speed and stride length for forward-walking were lower for those with a high level of FOF compared to those with a low level of FOF [21]. In another study, FOF remained significantly associated with decreased walking speed also after correction for sex, age, motor impairment (UPDRS III), and depression (HADS-D) [32]. Gait changes in people with FOF may be due to actual functional PD-related deficits, or FOF itself could modify gait. Both mechanisms are likely to occur simultaneously and mutually reinforcing [21,48]. As in earlier studies, we did not find a significant association between previous falls and FOF, highlighting that FOF could appear as a fall-independent condition [18,30,42].
Examining the impact of cognition on gait during simple walking (ST) is challenged by age-related gait changes that also occur in healthy older adults. It seems that different cognitive domains (e.g., executive function, attention) differentially influence temporal and postural aspects of gait [49,50,51,52,53]. For PD, little is known about the relationship between ST walking and cognitive function. In a study of 45 people with mild to moderate PD, for the single-task condition, stride length and gait speed were associated with processing speed measures, and step width variability was associated with executive function and attention measures [51]. We did not observe a strong effect of overall cognitive performance (MoCA) on the assessed gait parameters. A similar result was found in another sensor-based gait analysis where cognitively impaired PD patients did not have significantly different stride length and gait speed compared with PD patients without cognitive impairment [14]. In line with the study by Stegemöller et al., in our cohort, the MoCA subcategory “visuospatial/executive” correlated with spatial gait and variability parameters [51]. Attention did not significantly correlate with gait parameters. However, the methods in our study and in the study by Stegemöller et al. differed in terms of the cognitive test used, gait analyses, and cohort characteristics.
The association between cognition and gait is frequently studied under DT conditions, i.e., gait changes while completing a cognitive task [32,54,55,56,57]. DT can reveal a lack of automaticity and increased cognitive demands during walking [32]. Furthermore, among healthy adults, the DT walking deficits increase with age; however, in PD, there is consistently a greater DT walking deficit than in healthy, age-matched individuals [58]. DT gait speed has been associated with several motor factors (Hoehn and Yahr stage, UPDRS III, freezing of gait) and cognitive factors (executive function, set-shifting, and attention) [58]. In line with our findings, DT was accompanied by reduced gait speed and stride length and increased variability [10,53,55,59,60,61]. It was hypothesized that decreasing speed or stride length is a protective response to DT in both PD and healthy older adults [57].
Thus, it is evident that gait speed decreases with increasing cognitive impairment and that this effect can be measured by DT. However, the question was open whether the extent of speed reduction under DT (DT speed cost) allows conclusions to be drawn about the severity of the cognitive impairment. In order to answer this question, Gaßner et al. investigated cognitive function, single-task, and DT gait performance in 67 PD patients [14]. They hypothesized that PD patients with cognitive deficits show higher DT costs in gait parameters. However, they did not reveal correlations between DT costs of gait parameters and cognitive performance assessed with MoCA. In their study, DT costs of distinct gait parameters (stride length, swing time variability, and toe clearance) explained only 8% of the cognitive variance, suggesting that DT gait performance is not relevantly indicative for cognitive impairment in PD [14]. This is in line with our findings. We also found that DT costs of stride length explained 8% of the MoCA variance. Together with age, the DT costs of stride length explained 18% of the MoCA variance. Therefore, we were able to replicate the findings by Gaßner et al.
Finally, we aimed to answer how FOF and DT costs are related to each other in PD. We could not confirm our hypothesis that FOF increases DT costs. Although FOF was clearly associated with gait parameters during ST walking in our and other abovementioned studies, DT costs of gait parameters were not significantly related to FOF in the entire cohort. As there was neither a significant correlation between FOF and MoCA nor between FOF and gait DT costs, we assume that FOF does also not have a mediating/indirect effect on gait DT costs. This suggests that FOF has no remarkable influence on changes of gait while performing a cognitive task.
What can be concluded for clinical practice? Falls are common in people who are cognitively impaired. In particular, for PD, disentangling the mechanism and contribution of cognitive problems to falls and fall risk may open new treatment approaches [62]. Several PD clinical rehabilitation programs and therapies consider DT interventions as promising tools to reduce falls [63,64] because the use of DT during training seems to have benefits related to gait and balance parameters [65]. However, more studies are necessary to determine in which PD patient group the DT training has benefited [64]. For designing training programs, it is, however, necessary to know relevant cofactors that might influence DT costs. Our study indicates that the highly prevalent FOF in people with PD does not contribute to DT costs. Therefore, one can assume that FOF does not increase fall risk by aggravating DT costs in cognitively impaired PD patients. Rather FOF is to be regarded as an independent issue that might aggravate gait problems in PD.
Our study faces limitations. First, we focused on straight walking on a flat corridor. It may thus be promising to evaluate gait in more complex settings and movement behaviors such as turning and transfers. Second, this study focused on gait parameters that are relevant for current rehabilitation approaches for PD. There are more potentially independent gait parameters extractable with such inertial measurement unit-based technique, and it is possible that a more refined analysis approach could unveil additional associations between specific gait parameters and FOF. We do acknowledge that there may still be other influential factors for FOF that deserve consideration, such as level of physical activity and physical environmental barriers. Another limitation is that, due to the cross-sectional design, we cannot make causal statements.

5. Conclusions

FOF does not seem to modulate gait DT cost to a relevant extent. Moreover, our data suggest that FOF does not exacerbate DT effects in cognitively impaired people with PD.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/s22052029/s1, Table S1. Cross table for different degrees of fear of falling according to the Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I); Table S2. Cross table for different cognitive states according to the Montreal cognitive assessments (MoCA); Figure S1. Boxplots for group comparisons; Figure S2. Univariate correlation plots.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.P. and H.M.Z.; Data curation, T.P. and M.U.; Formal analysis, T.P. and M.U.; Methodology, S.D.; Project administration, T.P. and H.M.Z.; Writing—original draft, T.P.; Writing—review and editing, M.U., S.D., W.M. and H.M.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Jena University Hospital (4572-10/15).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request for scientific purposes only.

Acknowledgments

We thank Caroline Partschefeld and Eric Winter for assistance in data acquisition.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pfeiffer, R.F. Non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 2016, 22, S119–S122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jiménez-Cebrián, A.M.; Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo, R.; Losa-Iglesias, M.E.; López-López, D.; Calvo-Lobo, C.; Palomo-López, P.; Romero-Morales, C.; Navarro-Flores, E. The Impact of Depression Symptoms in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease: A Novel Case-Control Investigation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hass, C.J.; Malczak, P.; Nocera, J.; Stegemöller, E.L.; Wagle Shukla, A.; Shukala, A.; Malaty, I.; Jacobson, C.E.; Okun, M.S.; McFarland, N. Quantitative normative gait data in a large cohort of ambulatory persons with Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Barth, J.; Oberndorfer, C.; Pasluosta, C.; Schülein, S.; Gassner, H.; Reinfelder, S.; Kugler, P.; Schuldhaus, D.; Winkler, J.; Klucken, J.; et al. Stride segmentation during free walk movements using multi-dimensional subsequence dynamic time warping on inertial sensor data. Sensors 2015, 15, 6419–6440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mirelman, A.; Bonato, P.; Camicioli, R.; Ellis, T.D.; Giladi, N.; Hamilton, J.L.; Hass, C.J.; Hausdorff, J.M.; Pelosin, E.; Almeida, Q.J. Gait impairments in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 2019, 18, 697–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Takakusaki, K. Functional Neuroanatomy for Posture and Gait Control. J. Mov. Disord. 2017, 10, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kehagia, A.A.; Barker, R.A.; Robbins, T.W. Neuropsychological and clinical heterogeneity of cognitive impairment and dementia in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 2010, 9, 1200–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. van Iersel, M.B.; Hoefsloot, W.; Munneke, M.; Bloem, B.R.; Olde Rikkert, M.G.M. Systematic review of quantitative clinical gait analysis in patients with dementia. Z. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2004, 37, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yogev-Seligmann, G.; Hausdorff, J.M.; Giladi, N. The role of executive function and attention in gait. Mov. Disord. Off. J. Mov. Disord. Soc. 2008, 23, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Plotnik, M.; Dagan, Y.; Gurevich, T.; Giladi, N.; Hausdorff, J.M. Effects of cognitive function on gait and dual tasking abilities in patients with Parkinson’s disease suffering from motor response fluctuations. Exp. Brain Res. 2011, 208, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Amboni, M.; Barone, P.; Iuppariello, L.; Lista, I.; Tranfaglia, R.; Fasano, A.; Picillo, M.; Vitale, C.; Santangelo, G.; Agosti, V.; et al. Gait patterns in Parkinsonian patients with or without mild cognitive impairment. Mov. Disord. Off. J. Mov. Disord. Soc. 2012, 27, 1536–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kelly, V.E.; Johnson, C.O.; McGough, E.L.; Shumway-Cook, A.; Horak, F.B.; Chung, K.A.; Espay, A.J.; Revilla, F.J.; Devoto, J.; Wood-Siverio, C.; et al. Association of cognitive domains with postural instability/gait disturbance in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 2015, 21, 692–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Raffegeau, T.E.; Krehbiel, L.M.; Kang, N.; Thijs, F.J.; Altmann, L.J.P.; Cauraugh, J.H.; Hass, C.J. A Meta-Analysis: Parkinson’s Disease and Dual-Task Walking. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 2019, 62, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gaßner, H.; Marxreiter, F.; Steib, S.; Kohl, Z.; Schlachetzki, J.C.M.; Adler, W.; Eskofier, B.M.; Pfeifer, K.; Winkler, J.; Klucken, J. Gait and Cognition in Parkinson’s Disease: Cognitive Impairment is Inadequately Reflected by Gait Performance during Dual Task. Front. Neurol. 2017, 8, 550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Bock, O. Dual-task costs while walking increase in old age for some, but not for other tasks: An experimental study of healthy young and elderly persons. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2008, 5, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Adkin, A.L.; Frank, J.S.; Jog, M.S. Fear of falling and postural control in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. Off. J. Mov. Disord. Soc. 2003, 18, 496–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Atrsaei, A.; Hansen, C.; Elshehabi, M.; Solbrig, S.; Berg, D.; Liepelt-Scarfone, I.; Maetzler, W.; Aminian, K. Effect of Fear of Falling on Mobility Measured During Lab and Daily Activity Assessments in Parkinson’s Disease. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2021, 13, 722830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nilsson, M.H.; Hariz, G.-M.; Iwarsson, S.; Hagell, P. Walking ability is a major contributor to fear of falling in people with Parkinson’s disease: Implications for rehabilitation. Parkinson’s Dis. 2012, 2012, 713236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Koller, W.C.; Glatt, S.; Vetere-Overfield, B.; Hassanein, R. Falls and Parkinson’s disease. Clin. Neuropharmacol. 1989, 12, 98–105. [Google Scholar]
  20. Grimbergen, Y.A.M.; Schrag, A.; Mazibrada, G.; Borm, G.F.; Bloem, B.R. Impact of falls and fear of falling on health-related quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Parkinson’s Dis. 2013, 3, 409–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bryant, M.S.; Rintala, D.H.; Hou, J.-G.; Protas, E.J. Influence of fear of falling on gait and balance in Parkinson’s disease. Disabil. Rehabil. 2014, 36, 744–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Friedman, S.M.; Munoz, B.; West, S.K.; Rubin, G.S.; Fried, L.P. Falls and fear of falling: Which comes first? A longitudinal prediction model suggests strategies for primary and secondary prevention. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2002, 50, 1329–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mak, M.K.Y.; Pang, M.Y.C.; Mok, V. Gait difficulty, postural instability, and muscle weakness are associated with fear of falling in people with Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s Dis. 2012, 2012, 901721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Pickering, R.M.; Grimbergen, Y.A.M.; Rigney, U.; Ashburn, A.; Mazibrada, G.; Wood, B.; Gray, P.; Kerr, G.; Bloem, B.R. A meta-analysis of six prospective studies of falling in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. Off. J. Mov. Disord. Soc. 2007, 22, 1892–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. de Souza, N.S.; Martins, A.C.G.; Alexandre, D.J.; Orsini, M.; Bastos, V.H.D.V.; Leite, M.A.A.; Teixeira, S.; Velasques, B.; Ribeiro, P.; Bittencourt, J.; et al. The Influence of Fear of Falling on Orthostatic Postural Control: A Systematic Review. Neurol. Int. 2015, 7, 6057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Haertner, L.; Elshehabi, M.; Zaunbrecher, L.; Pham, M.H.; Maetzler, C.; van Uem, J.M.T.; Hobert, M.A.; Hucker, S.; Nussbaum, S.; Berg, D.; et al. Effect of Fear of Falling on Turning Performance in Parkinson’s Disease in the Lab and at Home. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2018, 10, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Oğuz, S.; Ertürk, G.; Polat, M.G.; Apaydın, H. The effect of kinesiophobia on physical activity, balance, and fear of falling in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2022, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Franchignoni, F.; Martignoni, E.; Ferriero, G.; Pasetti, C. Balance and fear of falling in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 2005, 11, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nilsson, M.H.; Drake, A.-M.; Hagell, P. Assessment of fall-related self-efficacy and activity avoidance in people with Parkinson’s disease. BMC Geriatr. 2010, 10, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lindholm, B.; Hagell, P.; Hansson, O.; Nilsson, M.H. Factors associated with fear of falling in people with Parkinson’s disease. BMC Neurol. 2014, 14, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kwon, K.Y.; Park, S.; Lee, H.M.; Park, Y.M.; Kim, J.; Kim, J.; Koh, S.B. Backward Gait is Associated with Motor Symptoms and Fear of Falling in Patients with De Novo Parkinson’s Disease. J. Clin. Neurol. Seoul Korea 2019, 15, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rochester, L.; Nieuwboer, A.; Baker, K.; Hetherington, V.; Willems, A.-M.; Kwakkel, G.; Van Wegen, E.; Lim, I.; Jones, D. Walking speed during single and dual tasks in Parkinson’s disease: Which characteristics are important? Mov. Disord. 2008, 23, 2312–2318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kluge, F.; Gaßner, H.; Hannink, J.; Pasluosta, C.; Klucken, J.; Eskofier, B.M. Towards Mobile Gait Analysis: Concurrent Validity and Test-Retest Reliability of an Inertial Measurement System for the Assessment of Spatio-Temporal Gait Parameters. Sensors 2017, 17, 1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schlachetzki, J.C.M.; Barth, J.; Marxreiter, F.; Gossler, J.; Kohl, Z.; Reinfelder, S.; Gassner, H.; Aminian, K.; Eskofier, B.M.; Winkler, J.; et al. Wearable sensors objectively measure gait parameters in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Heimrich, K.G.; Prell, T. Short- and Long-Term Effect of Parkinson’s Disease Multimodal Complex Treatment. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Richter, D.; Bartig, D.; Muhlack, S.; Hartelt, E.; Scherbaum, R.; Katsanos, A.H.; Müller, T.; Jost, W.; Ebersbach, G.; Gold, R.; et al. Dynamics of Parkinson’s Disease Multimodal Complex Treatment in Germany from 2010–2016: Patient Characteristics, Access to Treatment, and Formation of Regional Centers. Cells 2019, 8, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Goetz, C.G.; Fahn, S.; Martinez-Martin, P.; Poewe, W.; Sampaio, C.; Stebbins, G.T.; Stern, M.B.; Tilley, B.C.; Dodel, R.; Dubois, B.; et al. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): Process, format, and clinimetric testing plan. Mov. Disord. Off. J. Mov. Disord. Soc. 2007, 22, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Nasreddine, Z.S.; Phillips, N.A.; Bédirian, V.; Charbonneau, S.; Whitehead, V.; Collin, I.; Cummings, J.L.; Chertkow, H. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2005, 53, 695–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dalrymple-Alford, J.C.; MacAskill, M.R.; Nakas, C.T.; Livingston, L.; Graham, C.; Crucian, G.P.; Melzer, T.R.; Kirwan, J.; Keenan, R.; Wells, S.; et al. The MoCA: Well-suited screen for cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease. Neurology 2010, 75, 1717–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yardley, L.; Beyer, N.; Hauer, K.; Kempen, G.; Piot-Ziegler, C.; Todd, C. Development and initial validation of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I). Age Ageing 2005, 34, 614–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Delbaere, K.; Close, J.C.T.; Mikolaizak, A.S.; Sachdev, P.S.; Brodaty, H.; Lord, S.R. The Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I). A comprehensive longitudinal validation study. Age Ageing 2010, 39, 210–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Jonasson, S.B.; Ullén, S.; Iwarsson, S.; Lexell, J.; Nilsson, M.H. Concerns About Falling in Parkinson’s Disease: Associations with Disabilities and Personal and Environmental Factors. J. Parkinson’s Dis. 2015, 5, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Donath, L.; Faude, O.; Lichtenstein, E.; Nüesch, C.; Mündermann, A. Validity and reliability of a portable gait analysis system for measuring spatiotemporal gait characteristics: Comparison to an instrumented treadmill. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2016, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Donath, L.; Faude, O.; Lichtenstein, E.; Pagenstert, G.; Nüesch, C.; Mündermann, A. Mobile inertial sensor based gait analysis: Validity and reliability of spatiotemporal gait characteristics in healthy seniors. Gait Posture 2016, 49, 371–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Seel, T.; Raisch, J.; Schauer, T. IMU-based joint angle measurement for gait analysis. Sensors 2014, 14, 6891–6909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Abdulrahim, K.; Moore, T.; Hide, C.; Hill, C. Understanding the performance of zero velocity updates in MEMS-based pedestrian navigation. Int. J. Adv. Technol. 2014, 5, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  47. Fritz, N.E.; Cheek, F.M.; Nichols-Larsen, D.S. Motor-Cognitive Dual-Task Training in Persons With Neurologic Disorders: A Systematic Review. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 2015, 39, 142–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Kataoka, H.; Tanaka, N.; Eng, M.; Saeki, K.; Kiriyama, T.; Eura, N.; Ikeda, M.; Izumi, T.; Kitauti, T.; Furiya, Y.; et al. Risk of falling in Parkinson’s disease at the Hoehn-Yahr stage III. Eur. Neurol. 2011, 66, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Beauchet, O.; Annweiler, C.; Montero-Odasso, M.; Fantino, B.; Herrmann, F.R.; Allali, G. Gait control: A specific subdomain of executive function? J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2012, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Ble, A.; Volpato, S.; Zuliani, G.; Guralnik, J.M.; Bandinelli, S.; Lauretani, F.; Bartali, B.; Maraldi, C.; Fellin, R.; Ferrucci, L. Executive function correlates with walking speed in older persons: The InCHIANTI study. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2005, 53, 410–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stegemöller, E.L.; Wilson, J.P.; Hazamy, A.; Shelley, M.C.; Okun, M.S.; Altmann, L.J.P.; Hass, C.J. Associations Between Cognitive and Gait Performance During Single- and Dual-Task Walking in People With Parkinson Disease. Phys. Ther. 2014, 94, 757–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Watson, N.L.; Rosano, C.; Boudreau, R.M.; Simonsick, E.M.; Ferrucci, L.; Sutton-Tyrrell, K.; Hardy, S.E.; Atkinson, H.H.; Yaffe, K.; Satterfield, S.; et al. Executive function, memory, and gait speed decline in well-functioning older adults. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2010, 65, 1093–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Lord, S.; Rochester, L.; Hetherington, V.; Allcock, L.M.; Burn, D. Executive dysfunction and attention contribute to gait interference in ‘off’ state Parkinson’s Disease. Gait Posture 2010, 31, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Morris, M.; Iansek, R.; Smithson, F.; Huxham, F. Postural instability in Parkinson’s disease: A comparison with and without a concurrent task. Gait Posture 2000, 12, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rochester, L.; Hetherington, V.; Jones, D.; Nieuwboer, A.; Willems, A.-M.; Kwakkel, G.; Van Wegen, E. Attending to the task: Interference effects of functional tasks on walking in Parkinson’s disease and the roles of cognition, depression, fatigue, and balance. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2004, 85, 1578–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Wild, L.B.; de Lima, D.B.; Balardin, J.B.; Rizzi, L.; Giacobbo, B.L.; Oliveira, H.B.; de Lima Argimon, I.I.; Peyré-Tartaruga, L.A.; Rieder, C.R.M.; Bromberg, E. Characterization of cognitive and motor performance during dual-tasking in healthy older adults and patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. 2013, 260, 580–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Yogev, G.; Giladi, N.; Peretz, C.; Springer, S.; Simon, E.S.; Hausdorff, J.M. Dual tasking, gait rhythmicity, and Parkinson’s disease: Which aspects of gait are attention demanding? Eur. J. Neurosci. 2005, 22, 1248–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kelly, V.E.; Eusterbrock, A.J.; Shumway-Cook, A. A review of dual-task walking deficits in people with Parkinson’s disease: Motor and cognitive contributions, mechanisms, and clinical implications. Parkinson’s Dis. 2012, 2012, 918719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Brown, L.A.; de Bruin, N.; Doan, J.B.; Suchowersky, O.; Hu, B. Novel Challenges to Gait in Parkinson’s Disease: The Effect of Concurrent Music in Single- and Dual-Task Contexts. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2009, 90, 1578–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Galletly, R.; Brauer, S.G. Does the type of concurrent task affect preferred and cued gait in people with Parkinson’s disease? Aust. J. Physiother. 2005, 51, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. O’Shea, S.; Morris, M.E.; Iansek, R. Dual Task Interference During Gait in People With Parkinson Disease: Effects of Motor Versus Cognitive Secondary Tasks. Phys. Ther. 2002, 82, 888–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Montero-Odasso, M.; Speechley, M. Falls in Cognitively Impaired Older Adults: Implications for Risk Assessment And Prevention. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2018, 66, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Strouwen, C.; Molenaar, E.A.L.M.; Münks, L.; Keus, S.H.J.; Bloem, B.R.; Rochester, L.; Nieuwboer, A. Dual tasking in Parkinson’s disease: Should we train hazardous behavior? Expert Rev. Neurother. 2015, 15, 1031–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Lord, S.R.; Close, J.C.T. New horizons in falls prevention. Age Ageing 2018, 47, 492–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. De Freitas, T.B.; Leite, P.H.W.; Doná, F.; Pompeu, J.E.; Swarowsky, A.; Torriani-Pasin, C. The effects of dual task gait and balance training in Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2020, 36, 1088–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sensors 22 02029 g001 550
Figure 1. Changes of gait parameters between single- and dual-task condition. (A) stride length decreased (p < 0.001), (B) stride duration (p < 0.001) increased, (C) temporal variability (p < 0.001) increased, (D) speed (p < 0.001) decreased, (E) cadence decreased (p < 0.001), (F) toe clearance (p = 0.405) remained unchanged, (G) spatial variability (p = 0.003) increased under dual task with highest effect size for speed.
Figure 1. Changes of gait parameters between single- and dual-task condition. (A) stride length decreased (p < 0.001), (B) stride duration (p < 0.001) increased, (C) temporal variability (p < 0.001) increased, (D) speed (p < 0.001) decreased, (E) cadence decreased (p < 0.001), (F) toe clearance (p = 0.405) remained unchanged, (G) spatial variability (p = 0.003) increased under dual task with highest effect size for speed.
Sensors 22 02029 g001
Sensors 22 02029 g002 550
Figure 2. Flexplot.
Figure 2. Flexplot.
Sensors 22 02029 g002
Table
Table 1. Demographical and clinical characteristics.
Table 1. Demographical and clinical characteristics.
MedianMeanSDIQRp (Shapiro–Wilk)
Age (years)72.5070.658.8314.500.015
Disease duration (years)9.008.884.908.250.132
MDS-UPDRS III (0–132)26.0029.9214.0519.50<0.001
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (0–30)22.0022.083.947.000.229
Beck’s depression inventory II (BDI) (0–63)12.0012.927.226.750.018
Timed-up-go-test (s)12.7016.9912.4810.41<0.001
Falls Efficacy Scale International (16–64)29.5031.4510.7817.250.041
n%
Sexfemale1742.5
male2357.5
Hoehn and Yahr stage1615.0
2615.0
32050.0
4820.0
Presence of freezing of gait (FOG) no FOG2767.5
FOG1332.5
Use of walking aidno2972.5
yes1127.5
Fall(s) within last 6 months No1947.5
Yes2152.5
Table
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for gait measures (single task, dual task) and dual-task cost.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for gait measures (single task, dual task) and dual-task cost.
Single TaskDual TaskPaired Test (Single Task–Dual Task)Dual-Task Cost
MeanSDMeanSDpEffect SizeMeanSD
Stride duration (s)1.170.131.390.33<0.001 #−0.804−21.3021.27
<0.001 §−0.896
Stride length (m)0.990.220.890.26<0.001 #0.72018.7323.92
<0.001 §0.693
Speed (m/s)0.860.240.690.29<0.001 #0.941−10.6815.35
<0.001 §0.872
Cadence (steps/min)103.9511.4690.7719.84<0.001 #0.891−13.0014.16
<0.001 §0.868
Toe clearance (m)0.120.020.110.030.205 # 0.204−3.1118.36
0.405 § 0.161
Variability spatial (%)9.015.1413.428.760.001 #−0.542110.62218.39
0.003 §−0.534
Variability temporal (%)5.132.398.837.900.006 #−0.46081.43155.02
<0.001 §−0.585
Paired test: # Student’s t Test, § Wilcoxon test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Prell, T.; Uhlig, M.; Derlien, S.; Maetzler, W.; Zipprich, H.M. Fear of Falling Does Not Influence Dual-Task Gait Costs in People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sensors 2022, 22, 2029. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22052029

AMA Style

Prell T, Uhlig M, Derlien S, Maetzler W, Zipprich HM. Fear of Falling Does Not Influence Dual-Task Gait Costs in People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study. Sensors. 2022; 22(5):2029. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22052029

Chicago/Turabian Style

Prell, Tino, Manuela Uhlig, Steffen Derlien, Walter Maetzler, and Hannah M. Zipprich. 2022. "Fear of Falling Does Not Influence Dual-Task Gait Costs in People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study" Sensors 22, no. 5: 2029. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22052029

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop