Action observation combined with gait training to improve gait and cognition in elderly with mild cognitive impairment A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

<jats:p>Abstract. Owing to advancement of medical technology and current knowledge, the population has a longer life expectancy, leading to an increase in the proportion of elderly. Objective: The study aimed to investigate the effect of action observation (AO) combined with gait training on gait and cognition in elderly with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: Thirty-three participants were randomly allocated to action observation with gait training (AOGT), gait training (GT), and control (CT) groups. The AOGT and GT groups received a program of observation and gait training protocol with the same total duration of 65 min for 12 sessions. For the observation, the AGOT group watched a video of normal gait movement, while the GT group watched an abstract picture and the CT group received no training program. All participants were assessed for gait parameters during single- and dual-tasks using an electronic gait mat system and were assessed for cognitive level using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline, after training and at 1-month follow-up. Results: The results showed that the AOGT group had significant improvements in gait speeds during single- and dual-tasks, as well as better MoCA score, while the GT group had significant improvement only in gait speed. Conclusion: The adjunct treatment of AO with gait training provides greater benefits for both gait and cognitive performances in elderly with MCI.</jats:p>

Image_1.TIF

“…Additionally, four studies implemented interventions longer than 12 weeks (Kounti et al, 2011;Lam et al, 2015;Donnezan et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019). Only three studies had follow-up-up to 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively-and they also reported greater long-term cognitive improvements in combined intervention group (Donnezan et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019;Rojasavastera et al, 2020).…”

Data_Sheet_1.doc

“…Nine studies of older adults with MCI were eligible (Kounti et al, 2011;Lam et al, 2015;Delbroek et al, 2017;Park, 2017;Donnezan et al, 2018;Mrakic-Sposta et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019Park et al, , 2020Rojasavastera et al, 2020), with 217 participants in the combined intervention group, 41 in the single cognitive intervention group, and 176 in the sham intervention group. Regarding the study design, eight studies were RCTs (Lam et al, 2015;Delbroek et al, 2017;Park, 2017;Donnezan et al, 2018;Mrakic-Sposta et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019Park et al, , 2020Rojasavastera et al, 2020) and one study was NRCT (Kounti et al, 2011).…”

“…Nine studies of older adults with MCI were eligible (Kounti et al, 2011;Lam et al, 2015;Delbroek et al, 2017;Park, 2017;Donnezan et al, 2018;Mrakic-Sposta et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019Park et al, , 2020Rojasavastera et al, 2020), with 217 participants in the combined intervention group, 41 in the single cognitive intervention group, and 176 in the sham intervention group. Regarding the study design, eight studies were RCTs (Lam et al, 2015;Delbroek et al, 2017;Park, 2017;Donnezan et al, 2018;Mrakic-Sposta et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019Park et al, , 2020Rojasavastera et al, 2020) and one study was NRCT (Kounti et al, 2011). Regarding the modes of combined intervention, seven studies included simultaneous combined cognitive and physical training (Kounti et al, 2011;Delbroek et al, 2017;Park, 2017;Donnezan et al, 2018;Mrakic-Sposta et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019Park et al, , 2020 and two studies performed sequential combined intervention (Lam et al, 2015;Rojasavastera et al, 2020), all of which reported greater cognitive improvements in the combined intervention.…”

“…Regarding the study design, eight studies were RCTs (Lam et al, 2015;Delbroek et al, 2017;Park, 2017;Donnezan et al, 2018;Mrakic-Sposta et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019Park et al, , 2020Rojasavastera et al, 2020) and one study was NRCT (Kounti et al, 2011). Regarding the modes of combined intervention, seven studies included simultaneous combined cognitive and physical training (Kounti et al, 2011;Delbroek et al, 2017;Park, 2017;Donnezan et al, 2018;Mrakic-Sposta et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019Park et al, , 2020 and two studies performed sequential combined intervention (Lam et al, 2015;Rojasavastera et al, 2020), all of which reported greater cognitive improvements in the combined intervention. Regarding the comparison condition, three studies used single cognitive intervention (Park, 2017;Donnezan et al, 2018;Park et al, 2020), one study used social activities as a placebo control (Lam et al, 2015), and five studies used a blank control (Kounti et al, 2011;Delbroek et al, 2017;Mrakic-Sposta et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019;Rojasavastera et al, 2020).…”

“…Regarding the modes of combined intervention, seven studies included simultaneous combined cognitive and physical training (Kounti et al, 2011;Delbroek et al, 2017;Park, 2017;Donnezan et al, 2018;Mrakic-Sposta et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019Park et al, , 2020 and two studies performed sequential combined intervention (Lam et al, 2015;Rojasavastera et al, 2020), all of which reported greater cognitive improvements in the combined intervention. Regarding the comparison condition, three studies used single cognitive intervention (Park, 2017;Donnezan et al, 2018;Park et al, 2020), one study used social activities as a placebo control (Lam et al, 2015), and five studies used a blank control (Kounti et al, 2011;Delbroek et al, 2017;Mrakic-Sposta et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019;Rojasavastera et al, 2020). Additionally, four studies implemented interventions longer than 12 weeks (Kounti et al, 2011;Lam et al, 2015;Donnezan et al, 2018;Park et al, 2019).…”