Table 3.
Dual-task costs.
| Good TMT performers | Poor TMT performers | p-value | F-value | Degrees of freedom | Effect size | R2 | Odd's ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DUAL-TASK COSTS—SWP | ||||||||
| Walking when checking boxes [%] | 11 ± 8 | 11 ± 9 | 0.61 | 0.26 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.05 | 0.6 (0.1–4.1) |
| Checking boxes when walking [%] | 13 ± 11 | 14 ± 12 | 0.80 | 0.06 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.02 | 0.8 (0.2–3.3) |
| Walking when subtracting [%] | 16 ± 11 | 18 ± 12 | 0.10 | 2.76 | 1 | 0.004 | 0.03 | 3.2 (0.8–12.8) |
| Subtracting when walking [%] | 3 ± 28 | −4 ± 37 | 0.023 | 5.23 | 1 | 0.008 | 0.02 | 0.5 (0.3–0.9) |
| ≥1 subtraction error (proportion of cohort) [%] | 2 | −10 | 0.014 | 6.08 | 1 | 0.009 | 0.02 | 1.4 (1.1–1.8) |
| DUAL-TASK COSTS —CWP | ||||||||
| Walking when checking boxes [%] | 20 ± 16 | 21 ± 17 | 0.67 | 0.18 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.08 | 0.8 (0.3–2.3) |
| Checking boxes when walking [%] | 15 ± 10 | 15 ± 11 | 0.96 | 0.003 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.04 | 1.0 (0.2–4.9) |
| Walking when subtracting [%] | 22 ± 24 | 30 ± 25 | <0.0001 | 19.14 | 1 | 0.028 | 0.03 | 4.5 (2.2–9.4) |
| Subtracting when walking [%] | 2 ± 22 | −3 ± 35 | 0.10 | 2.66 | 1 | 0.004 | 0.03 | 0.6 (0.3–1.1) |
| ≥1 subtraction error (proportion of cohort) [%] | −2 | −10 | 0.11 | 2.51 | 1 | 0.004 | 0.02 | 1.2 (1.0–1.6) |
Data are presented with mean and standard deviation. P-Values, F-Values, degrees of freedom, effect size (eta square), R-squared values, and Odd's ratios were calculated using a logistical regression model and the likelihood ratio, with correction for age, gender, body mass index, education level, and the Mini-Mental State Examination score. CWP, circular walking path; SWP, straight walking path.