Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 237, Issue 12, pp 3185–3193 | Cite as

Less noise during dual-task walking in healthy young adults: an analysis of different gait variability components

  • Daniel HamacherEmail author
  • Monique Koch
  • Susanna Löwe
  • Astrid Zech
Research Article


Dual-task costs of gait (variability) parameters are frequently used to probe the grade of automaticity of walking. However, recent studies reported contradicting dual-task costs for different gait variability measures within the same cohorts. The effects of a dual-task on the gait pattern are, thus, not fully understood. The aim of the current study was to analyze the different gait variability components (‘Tolerance’, ‘Noise’, and ‘Covariation’) during dual-task walking compared to single-task walking. In an experimental study, 21 young and healthy adults (11 males, 10 females, age: 24 ± 3 years) were included. The participants completed three experimental conditions: (a) single-task walking, (b) dual-task walking (serial-seven subtractions), and (c) cognitive single task in sitting position. To analyze different gait variability components, we applied a method which distinguishes the three components: ‘Tolerance’, ‘Noise’, and ‘Covariation’ (TNC). To test for differences, we used the statistical parametric mapping method. Compared to single-task walking, the results depict lower gait variability of the result parameters during the dual-task condition at 0–15% (p = 0.010) and 94–100% (p = 0.040) of the stance phase and 0–63% (p < 0.001) during the swing phase. The decreased result parameter variability was due to less (sensorimotor) ‘Noise’ (stance: 2–100%, p < 0.001; swing: 2–59%, p < 0.001) during the dual-task walking condition. In further studies, the sources of the reduced unstructured (sensorimotor) noise in the dual-task condition should be analyzed to better understand the effect of a cognitive dual task on the gait pattern.


Gait TNC analysis Functional variability Covariation Noise Uncontrolled manifold 



This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All participants provided their written informed consent after they were briefed about the research protocol which complied with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by Ethical Commission of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena (No. FSV 18/11).


  1. Barrett DS, Cobb AG, Bentley G (1991) Joint proprioception in normal, osteoarthritic and replaced knees. J Bone Jt Surg 73-B:53–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett RS, Mills PM, Begg RK (2010) A systematic review of the effect of ageing and falls history on minimum foot clearance characteristics during level walking. Gait Posture 32:429–435. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayot M, Dujardin K, Tard C, Defebvre L, Bonnet CT, Allart E, Delval A (2018) The interaction between cognition and motor control: a theoretical framework for dual-task interference effects on posture, gait initiation, gait and turning. Neurophysiol Clin 48:361–375. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beilock SL, Gray R (2012) From attentional control to attentional spillover: a skill-level investigation of attention, movement, and performance outcomes. Hum Mov Sci 31:1473–1499. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Beilock SL, Carr TH, MacMahon C, Starkes JL (2002) When paying attention becomes counterproductive: impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. J Exp Psychol Appl 8:6–16. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstein N (1967) The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark DJ (2015) Automaticity of walking: functional significance, mechanisms, measurement and rehabilitation strategies. Front Hum Neurosci. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Dal U, Erdogan T, Resitoglu B, Beydagi H (2010) Determination of preferred walking speed on treadmill may lead to high oxygen cost on treadmill walking. Gait Posture 31:366–369. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Davids K, Glazier P, Araújo D, Bartlett R (2003) Movement systems as dynamical systems. Sports Med 33:245–260. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Decker LM, Cignetti F, Hunt N, Potter JF, Stergiou N, Studenski SA (2016) Effects of aging on the relationship between cognitive demand and step variability during dual-task walking. Age (Dordr) 38:363–375. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Faisal AA, Selen LPJ, Wolpert DM (2008) Noise in the nervous system. Nat Rev Neurosci 9:292–303. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamacher D, Zech A (2018) Development of functional variability during the motor learning process of a complex cyclic movement. J Biomech 77:124–130. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamacher D, Singh NB, Van Dieën JH, Heller MO, Taylor WR (2011) Kinematic measures for assessing gait stability in elderly individuals: a systematic review. J R Soc Interface 8:1682–1698. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamacher D, Hamacher D, Schega L (2014) Towards the importance of minimum toe clearance in level ground walking in a healthy elderly population. Gait Posture 40:727–729. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamacher D, Hamacher D, Müller R, Schega L, Zech A (2017) Exploring phase dependent functional gait variability. Hum Mov Sci 52:191–196. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamacher D, Hamacher D, Müller R, Schega L, Zech A (2019) The effect of a cognitive dual task on the control of minimum toe clearance while walking. Motor Control. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hausdorff JM (2005) Gait variability: methods, modeling and meaning. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2:19. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Leardini A, Sawacha Z, Paolini G, Ingrosso S, Nativo R, Benedetti MG (2007) A new anatomically based protocol for gait analysis in children. Gait Posture 26:560–571. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Loosch E (1999) Allgemeine Bewegungslehre. UTB für Wissenschaft, vol 2100. Limpert, WiebelsheimGoogle Scholar
  20. Lövdén M, Schaefer RS, Pohlmeyer AE, Lindenberger U (2008) Walking variability and working-memory load in aging: a dual-process account relating cognitive control to motor control performance. J Gerontol Psychol Sci 63B:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Müller H, Loosch E (1999) Functional variability and an equifinal path of movement during targeted throwing. J Hum Mov Stud 36:103–126Google Scholar
  22. Müller H, Sternad D (2003) A randomization method for the calculation of covariation in multiple nonlinear relations: illustrated with the example of goal-directed movements. Biol Cybern 89:22–33. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Müller H, Sternad D (2004) Decomposition of variability in the execution of goal-oriented tasks: three components of skill improvement. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30:212–233. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Müller H, Sternad D (2009) Motor learning: changes in the structure of variability in a redundant task. In: Sternad D (ed) Progress in motor control, vol 629. Springer, Boston, pp 439–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Müller H, Frank TD, Sternad D (2007) Variability, covariation, and invariance with respect to coordinate systems in motor control: reply to Smeets and Louw (2007). J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33:250–255. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Papi E, Rowe PJ, Pomeroy VM (2015) Analysis of gait within the uncontrolled manifold hypothesis: stabilisation of the centre of mass during gait. J Biomech 48:324–331. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pataky TC (2012) One-dimensional statistical parametric mapping in Python. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 15:295–301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Qu X (2012) Uncontrolled manifold analysis of gait variability: effects of load carriage and fatigue. Gait Posture 36:325–329. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sabatini AM, Martelloni C, Scapellato S, Cavallo F (2005) Assessment of walking features from foot inertial sensing. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 52:486–494. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Santhiranayagam BK, Lai DTH, Sparrow WA, Begg RK (2015) Minimum toe clearance events in divided attention treadmill walking in older and young adults: a cross-sectional study. J Neuroeng Rehabil 12:240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schubert P (2013) Die Anwendung nichtlinearer Verfahren zur Charakterisierung der menschlichen Variabilität aus Zeitreihen. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin 64:132–140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sternad D (2018) It’s not (only) the mean that matters: variability, noise and exploration in skill learning. Curr Opin Behav Sci 20:183–195. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Tawy GF, Rowe P, Biant L (2018) Gait variability and motor control in patients with knee osteoarthritis as measured by the uncontrolled manifold technique. Gait Posture 59:272–277. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Todorov E, Jordan MI (2002) Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nat Neurosci 5:1226–1235. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Sports ScienceFriedrich Schiller University of JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations