Loading...
Age and task difficulty differences in dual tasking using circle tracing and serial subtraction tasks
Vaportzis, Ria Georgiou-Karistianis, N. Stout, J.C.
Vaportzis, Ria
Georgiou-Karistianis, N.
Stout, J.C.
Publication Date
2014-04
End of Embargo
Supervisor
Rights
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy.
The final publication is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-013-0151-5
Peer-Reviewed
Yes
Open Access status
Accepted for publication
2013-09-25
Institution
Department
Awarded
Embargo end date
Collections
Additional title
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate age-related differences in dual task performance by using an upper limb proprioceptive task. Twenty-eight younger (18–30 years) and 28 older (>60 years) healthy adults performed circle tracing and serial subtraction tasks separately and concurrently. The tasks had two levels of difficulty: easy and hard. The circle tracing task included direct (easy) and indirect (hard) visual feedback conditions, and it was paired with serial subtraction by twos (easy) or threes (hard). We found that older adults were significantly slower than younger adults across all conditions and had significantly greater dual task costs when they performed circle tracing with easy serial subtraction. Higher levels of task difficulty were associated with slower speed in both groups. We found no age differences in accuracy. Participants either traded speed for accuracy or accuracy for speed regardless of age group. Overall, the findings suggest that speed and accuracy may be affected differently during dual tasking. In addition, older adults may rely more extensively on proprioceptive feedback to guide upper limb movement compared with younger adults.
Version
Accepted manuscript
Citation
Vaportzis E, Georgious-Karistianis N and Stout JC (2014) Age and task difficulty differences in dual tasking using circle tracing and serial subtraction tasks. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research. 26(2): 201-211.
Link to publisher’s version
Link to published version
Link to Version of Record
Type
Article