Single- Versus Dual-Task Functional Movement Paradigms: A Biomechanical Analysis

Abstract

Context: 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. Objective: To comprehensively examine and compare kinematics and kinetics between single- and dual-task functional movement among healthy participants while controlling for sex. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: 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. Main Outcome Measures: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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.