Limits...
Gait Pattern Alterations during Walking, Texting and Walking and Texting during Cognitively Distractive Tasks while Negotiating Common Pedestrian Obstacles.

Licence S, Smith R, McGuigan MP, Earnest CP - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: No significant differences were noted for barrier contacts (P = 0.28).Texting while walking and/or being cognitively distracted significantly affect gait characteristics concordant to mobile phone usage resulting in a more cautious gate pattern.Future research should also examine a similar study in older participants who may be at a greater risk of tripping with such walking deviations.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The University of Bath, Department for Health, Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Mobile phone texting is a common daily occurrence with a paucity of research examining corresponding gait characteristics. To date, most studies have participants walk in a straight line vs. overcoming barriers and obstacles that occur during regular walking. The aim of our study is to examine the effect of mobile phone texting during periods of cognitive distraction while walking and negotiating barriers synonymous with pedestrian traffic.

Methods: Thirty participants (18-50 y) completed three randomized, counter-balanced walking tasks over a course during: (1) normal walking (control), (2) texting and walking, and (3) texting and walking whilst being cognitively distraction via a standard mathematical test performed while negotiating the obstacle course. We analyzed gait characteristics during course negotiation using a 3-dimensional motion analysis system and a general linear model and Dunnet-Hsu post-hoc procedure the normal walking condition to assess gait characteristic differences. Primary outcomes included the overall time to complete the course time and barrier contact. Secondary outcomes included obstacle clearance height, step frequency, step time, double support phase and lateral deviation.

Results: Participants took significantly longer (mean ± SD) to complete the course while texting (24.96 ± 4.20 sec) and during cognitive distraction COG (24.09 ± 3.36 sec) vs. normal walking (19.32 ± 2.28 sec; all, P<0.001). No significant differences were noted for barrier contacts (P = 0.28). Step frequency, step time, double support phase and lateral deviation all increased in duration during the texting and cognitive distraction trial. Texting and being cognitively distracted also increased obstacle clearance versus the walking condition (all, P<0.02).

Conclusions: Texting while walking and/or being cognitively distracted significantly affect gait characteristics concordant to mobile phone usage resulting in a more cautious gate pattern. Future research should also examine a similar study in older participants who may be at a greater risk of tripping with such walking deviations.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Data represent mean and 95% confidence interval information for Course Time (Panel A), Step Length (Panel B), Double Support phase of walking (Panel C) and Obstacle Clearance Height for course barriers (Panel D).Statistical notations are: * 0.001 and ¶ 0.02.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4519241&req=5

pone.0133281.g002: Data represent mean and 95% confidence interval information for Course Time (Panel A), Step Length (Panel B), Double Support phase of walking (Panel C) and Obstacle Clearance Height for course barriers (Panel D).Statistical notations are: * 0.001 and ¶ 0.02.

Mentions: We have presented the overall findings for negotiating the complete course in Table 1. Overall, we found that it took significantly longer to complete the course due to slower walking speeds under the TXT and COG conditions vs. WLK (all, P<0.001, Fig 2A). In support of these observations, participants exhibited significantly shorter step lengths (Fig 2B), lower step frequencies, longer double support phases (Fig 2C), and greater obstacle clearance heights while TXT and COG vs. WLK (all, P<0.001, Fig 2D). While the COG condition was significantly different to TXT for walking speed (P<0.02) and step frequency (P<0.04), no other significant differences were noted between the TXT and COG conditions. Despite these alterations in gait characteristics we did not observe any changes in barrier contacts during any treatment condition (P = 0.10).


Gait Pattern Alterations during Walking, Texting and Walking and Texting during Cognitively Distractive Tasks while Negotiating Common Pedestrian Obstacles.

Licence S, Smith R, McGuigan MP, Earnest CP - PLoS ONE (2015)

Data represent mean and 95% confidence interval information for Course Time (Panel A), Step Length (Panel B), Double Support phase of walking (Panel C) and Obstacle Clearance Height for course barriers (Panel D).Statistical notations are: * 0.001 and ¶ 0.02.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4519241&req=5

pone.0133281.g002: Data represent mean and 95% confidence interval information for Course Time (Panel A), Step Length (Panel B), Double Support phase of walking (Panel C) and Obstacle Clearance Height for course barriers (Panel D).Statistical notations are: * 0.001 and ¶ 0.02.
Mentions: We have presented the overall findings for negotiating the complete course in Table 1. Overall, we found that it took significantly longer to complete the course due to slower walking speeds under the TXT and COG conditions vs. WLK (all, P<0.001, Fig 2A). In support of these observations, participants exhibited significantly shorter step lengths (Fig 2B), lower step frequencies, longer double support phases (Fig 2C), and greater obstacle clearance heights while TXT and COG vs. WLK (all, P<0.001, Fig 2D). While the COG condition was significantly different to TXT for walking speed (P<0.02) and step frequency (P<0.04), no other significant differences were noted between the TXT and COG conditions. Despite these alterations in gait characteristics we did not observe any changes in barrier contacts during any treatment condition (P = 0.10).

Bottom Line: No significant differences were noted for barrier contacts (P = 0.28).Texting while walking and/or being cognitively distracted significantly affect gait characteristics concordant to mobile phone usage resulting in a more cautious gate pattern.Future research should also examine a similar study in older participants who may be at a greater risk of tripping with such walking deviations.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The University of Bath, Department for Health, Bath, Somerset, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Mobile phone texting is a common daily occurrence with a paucity of research examining corresponding gait characteristics. To date, most studies have participants walk in a straight line vs. overcoming barriers and obstacles that occur during regular walking. The aim of our study is to examine the effect of mobile phone texting during periods of cognitive distraction while walking and negotiating barriers synonymous with pedestrian traffic.

Methods: Thirty participants (18-50 y) completed three randomized, counter-balanced walking tasks over a course during: (1) normal walking (control), (2) texting and walking, and (3) texting and walking whilst being cognitively distraction via a standard mathematical test performed while negotiating the obstacle course. We analyzed gait characteristics during course negotiation using a 3-dimensional motion analysis system and a general linear model and Dunnet-Hsu post-hoc procedure the normal walking condition to assess gait characteristic differences. Primary outcomes included the overall time to complete the course time and barrier contact. Secondary outcomes included obstacle clearance height, step frequency, step time, double support phase and lateral deviation.

Results: Participants took significantly longer (mean ± SD) to complete the course while texting (24.96 ± 4.20 sec) and during cognitive distraction COG (24.09 ± 3.36 sec) vs. normal walking (19.32 ± 2.28 sec; all, P<0.001). No significant differences were noted for barrier contacts (P = 0.28). Step frequency, step time, double support phase and lateral deviation all increased in duration during the texting and cognitive distraction trial. Texting and being cognitively distracted also increased obstacle clearance versus the walking condition (all, P<0.02).

Conclusions: Texting while walking and/or being cognitively distracted significantly affect gait characteristics concordant to mobile phone usage resulting in a more cautious gate pattern. Future research should also examine a similar study in older participants who may be at a greater risk of tripping with such walking deviations.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus