English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Gait in people with Parkinson’s disease (PD) is arrhythmic, small in amplitude, and variable (1–3). In addition, people with PD often exhibit reduced automaticity of movement (4), resulting in increased attention directed toward gait. This can be observed empirically when they have to perform a secondary task in addition to gait, so-called dual-task walking. In dual-task conditions, people with PD show larger impairments in gait than their healthy peers (5–7); for review, see Ref. (8). One strategy to improve gait in people with PD is cueing. Cueing is a well-established rehabilitation technique for improved locomotion in people with PD (9). In the clinic, auditory cueing is typically used to improve consistency and rhythmicity of steps. In individuals with PD who freeze, visual and auditory cues can also be used in a transient manner to break freezing events [for review, see Ref. (10)]. However, the mechanisms through which cueing improves gait are incompletely understood. The purpose of the current manuscript is to present proposed mechanisms of action of cueing. Further, we highlight the importance of cognition and, specifically, attention, in the efficacy of cueing. Finally, we present several possible directions for future research in the field.  Attention plays an important role in the efficacy of cueing. For example, as reduced movement automaticity may contribute to poorer gait function (e.g., smaller, more variable steps) in people with PD (4), external cues may act as pace-makers, taking the place of this additional cognitive control and reducing the amount of attention needed to maintain stable gait. This would mean that cued gait would allow more attention to be devoted to other secondary tasks, and one would expect lower dual-task costs (11). Alternatively, external cues may help to focus attention on gait. This should be particularly helpful in conditions that require more attention, such as walking while negotiating obstacles. If this were true, then one would expect to see a prioritization of the gait task over other tasks while using cues. Finally, it could be true that in specific circumstances and subgroups, external cues represent an additional cognitive task to walking, also requiring attention (12). Thus, cues may compete with gait for attentional resources and reduce gait quality during complex or attention-demanding environments.  Research has provided clues regarding the role of attention in cued gait. In a sub-analysis of the RESCUE trial (11), the effect of cueing was tested while completing either simple walking (no secondary task) or a complex secondary motor task – carrying a tray with glasses filled with water. Interestingly, results showed that gait speed improvements through cueing were only apparent while completing the complex motor task; a detrimental effect was observed during simple walking. In other words, the cue prevented gait slowing even while carrying the tray. These results suggest that cueing improves dual-task ability, and seem to support the idea that cues reduce attentional demands, thus freeing up attentional resources to secondary tasks. However, while this conclusion is plausible, it is also possible that cueing forced allocation of attention toward gait, potentially to the detriment of the secondary motor task performance. To distinguish between these two explanations, it would be necessary to capture the performance on the secondary task (i.e., what happened to the glasses on the tray) in the complex gait plus cueing condition. If cueing reduces the required amount of attention for gait, we would expect the cues not to impact performance carrying the tray. In contrast, if cueing led to allocation of attention specific to gait (prioritization of gait over secondary task), then deterioration on the tray-carrying task would be expected.  In a more recent study (13), a secondary cognitive task was used to evaluate the effects of attentional or “internal” cueing (i.e., “think about taking larger steps”), and “external” auditory cueing during attention-demanding situations. Results showed that attentional cueing, but not auditory cueing, resulted in improved gait velocity, possibly due to the specific focus on length of steps in that condition. Interestingly, the benefits of attentional cueing were retained during dual tasking. Although not formally analyzed, the authors also reported no differences in the cognitive task during the different conditions. This lends some support to the idea that cueing, in particular, “internal” attentional cueing, may reduce the amount of attention needed for gait. Additional indirect evidence for this hypothesis comes from a study where PD subjects had to respond to auditory stimuli that were presented regularly, while walking. A concern in this dual-task study was that presentation of these secondary-task stimuli at a fixed interval (1 or 2 s) could act as external cues, thereby improving gait. To test this, an additional condition was added in which auditory stimuli were presented at random intervals (1–3 s). Interestingly, the more difficult 1s condition (higher time pressure) yielded less dual-task costs on gait than the 2 s or variable interval conditions, possibly reflecting a cueing effect. However, during this 1 s condition, we also observed higher dual-task costs on the auditory cognitive task (i.e., slower and less accurate responses). Thus, although the cognitive stimuli may have worked as a cue to help to keep gait speed up, this came at a price, namely, drawing attention from the cognitive task. Given these partially conflicting results, additional work directly assessing performance on both gait and cognitive tasks with and without cues and dual tasks will be necessary to elucidate these interactions.  The concern that external cues might be detrimental for complex gait due to attentional costs to attend to the cues is not supported in the abovementioned studies. This concern was also directly addressed in a study looking at obstacle avoidance performance while walking on a treadmill (12). This challenging task has previously been shown to demand considerable attention (14–16). In line with previously mentioned studies, this complex motor task was not affected by external cues, providing further evidence that external cues do not add additional attentional costs during walking, thus worsening gait performance.  Together, these findings confirm that cueing improves gait even in complex or cognitively challenging environments. However, one should note that not all gait parameters change in a similar fashion through cueing. For example, spatial parameters such as gait speed and stride length are typically improved during visual, attentional, and rhythmic cues, while temporal cues such as cadence are unaffected (11, 17, 18). These results are not fully consistent however, as Lebold and Almeida recently showed that visual cues increased stride length, but reduced cadence in people with PD (19). Further, recent work has begun to investigate the effects of cues on gait stability parameters, such as spatiotemporal variability. However, there is currently a paucity in high-quality research on the effect of cues on these stability metrics that may be more reflective of quality of gait.

Cues and Attention in Parkinsonian Gait: Potential Mechanisms and Future Directions