Prefrontal hemodynamics during forward and backward walking, with and without a cognitive task, in people with MS: An fNIRS study

Yana Kupchenko, Sapir Dreyer-Alster, Kim-Charline Broscheid, Alon Kalron
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.18.22281209

Abstract

Objective To investigate the prefrontal cortex (PFC) hemodynamics during forward and as well as backward walking, with and without a cognitive task, in people with MS (pwMS) and healthy controls.

Methods The observational functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) study comprised 18 pwMS and 17 healthy controls. Each subject completed four walking trials: Single task (ST) forward walking, dual task (DT) forward walking, ST backward walking, DT backward walking. PFC activity for all trials was recorded using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). The PFC was subdivided in the frontal eye field (FEF), frontopolar cortex (FPC) and the dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC).

Results The relative oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) concentration was higher during the DT forward walking in all PFC subareas compared with the ST forward walking for both groups. The relative HbO concentration was higher during ST backward walking compared with ST forward walking in pwMS (DLPFC, FEF) and the healthy controls (FEF, FPC), specifically during the initial part of the trial. There was no distinct difference in the relative HbO concentration between ST backward walking with DT backward walking in pwMS. In contrast, the relative HbO concentration in the FEF and the FPC increased in healthy controls during DT backward walking compared with ST backward walking, specifically during the second half of the trial.

Conclusions ST backward walking and DT forward walking impact the hemodynamics at the PFC, although, the difference between pwMS and healthy adults requires further clarification. Future RCT’s are encouraged to examine the impact of an intervention program based on DT forward and backward walking on PFC activity in pwMS.

Impact The present study demonstrated that backward walking increases activity in the PFC region. Similarly, when performing a cognitive task while walking forward. This information should be considered by PT’s for training, particularly pwMS.

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS), the most common chronic immune-mediated disorder affecting the central nervous system of young adults, is characterized by gait and debilitating cognitive impairments.1-3 MS-related gait difficulties contribute to a high risk of falling, as well as a reduced quality of life (QoL) and other negative real-world outcomes.4,5 Similarly, cognitive impairment, occurring in ∼50% of people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS),6 has been found associated with a host of negative consequences including depression, isolation, and a reduced QoL.7-9 Importantly, gait and cognitive impairments tend to co-occur in pwMS (i.e., cognitive-motor coupling).10,11

Previous studies have shown that pwMS possess an impaired ability to integrate cognitive and motor tasks (i.e., walking).12 Based on several systematic reviews, where pwMS were instructed to walk while performing a cognitive task (defined as a motor-cognitive dual task (DT)), their walking speed was reduced compared to standard walking (referred as the DT cost).13-14 Motor-cognitive DT involves an allocation of available attentional resources, requiring decision-making and executive functions. Consequently, the majority of studies investigating brain activity during motor-cognitive DT have focused on the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which plays a central role in cognitive control functions. Involvement of the PFC during motor-cognitive DT has been reported in healthy adults,15 stroke survivors,16 and people with Parkinson’s disease.17

Recently, a systematic review described neural-correlates of motor (walking)-cognitive DT in people with central neurological disorders;18 six of these studies investigated pwMS,19-24 only one provided information on the PFC.24 Hernandez et al reported that the increase in PFC oxygenation concentration during motor (walking)-cognitive DT (compared to single task (ST) walking) was greater in pwMS compared with the healthy controls.24 Worth noting, only two (out of six) studies21,24 assessed brain activity by a functional near infra-red spectroscopy device (fNIRS). This device is a non-invasive brain imaging tool to measure blood oxygenation change and is a common system used to monitor brain activity during motor-cognitive DT. fNIRS has better temporal resolution, is easier to use, and more cost effective to implement than an fMRI, although, spatial resolution is more limited. Additionally, the fNIRS has better spatial resolution and is more robust against motion artifacts than an electroencephalogram (EEG), although temporal resolution is more limited.25

In the present study, we explored further the role of the PFC during motor-cognitive DT by supplementing backward walking to forward walking. Backward walking is crucial when performing activities of daily living such as backing up to a chair or moving away from the refrigerator door when closing it. Previous studies have recognized that backward walking can serve as a sensitive clinical measure of mobility in the elderly26 including those with dementia,27 and pwMS.27,28 Backward walking requires increased cognitive demands and postural control29 vis a vis forward walking. In pwMS, deficits in balance increase during backward walking and significantly correlate with severity regarding clinical measures of mobility and disability.30 Furthermore, pwMS, when administered with a cognitive DT, display more prominent deficits during backward walking than during normal walking.31,32

A question of interest is whether ST forward walking and ST backward walking require different neural activity at the PFC. Moreover, the effect of a concurrent cognitive DT during backward walking on the neural activity in the PFC, is unknown. Data on this issue might be beneficial for pwMS since backward walking maybe successfully applied in rehabilitation therapy.33

Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the PFC hemodynamics during forward and backward walking during ST and DT in pwMS versus healthy controls. Based on the literature, our hypotheses were that PFC hemodynamics would differ between ST and DT, in both forward and backward conditions, in both groups, however, to a larger extent in pwMS. Backward walking would result in differences in the PFC hemodynamics compared with forward walking during ST and DT conditions in both pwMS and healthy controls.

Materials and methods

Study design and participants

This observational fNIRS case-control study was conducted at the Multiple Sclerosis Center, Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer, Israel and comprised a convenience sample of 18 pwMS (36.1 ± 11.7 years, 66.6% female) and 17 healthy controls (37.5 ± 13.8 years, 76.5% female). Due to lack of comparable studies, no sample size calculation was performed. However, our sample size was similar to other fNIRS gait studies researching pwMS.20,21,24 pwMS were enrolled in the study according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) a neurologist-confirmed diagnosis of definite MS according to the revised McDonald criteria;34 (2) ability to walk without a cane or canes or walker or rollator. Exclusion criteria included: (1) corticosteroid treatment within 90 days prior to examination; (2) other significant neurological or psychiatric illnesses; (3) diagnosed with dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system; (4) blood pressure irregularities (e.g. prehypertension, hypertension, orthostatic hypotension) (self-report); (5) alcohol or drug abuse, and (6) orthopedic disorders that could negatively affect walking. The objectives and requirements of our study were explained to all the participants who prior to their participation provided informed consent. Approval was obtained from the Sheba Medical Center Independent Ethics Committee before commencement of the study (Ethics Ref: 5596-08/141210).

Role of the Funding Source

The funders played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study.

Experimental procedure

The experiment was conducted at a single session in Sheba MSC. Following the acquisition of informed consent, the participants completed the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), a measure of information processing,35 and the 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS-12), a measure of patient perception of the impact of MS on walking ability.36 The experiment was continued in a separate room embedded with a 25 m walking path. Each subject completed a sequence of four consecutive walking trials with a 1 min rest break between trials. All walking trials were performed with the subject wearing an fNIRS device (a cap and a 2 kg backpack (NIRSport2, NIRx Medical Technologies LLC, New York, USA)). Each walking trial was repeated 3 times (30 s each trial, with a rest interval of 40 s). The trials consisted of the following conditions:

  1. ST forward walking: All participants wore their everyday footwear and were instructed to walk across the room at their normal walking speed. At the end of the walking path, the participant was instructed to turn around and continue until the end of the 30 s trial, announced aloud by the tester.

  2. DT forward walking: The procedure was identical to the ST forward walking except that subjects were instructed to perform the Serial-7 Backward Test37 while walking. They were asked to count backwards aloud in increments of seven starting from a randomly chosen 3-digit number between 300 and 400.

  3. ST backward walking: The condition was also identical to normal walking except for walking backward at a self-selected pace while looking straight ahead. The tester walked alongside the subject for safety, informing the patient when the end of the path was reached.

  4. DT backward walking: The subjects were instructed to perform the Serial-7 Backward Test while walking backward. During the rest intervals, the subject was instructed to stand in place with a steady walker to lean on. Furthermore, in order to minimize the influence of mind wandering on PFC brain activity, the subject was instructed to count quietly upwards by one during the resting period. The experiment was coded by the Python PsychoPy® software (Open Science Tools Ltd).38 PsychoPy® (https://psychopy.org/index.html) is an application for creating experiments in behavioral sciences with precise spatial control and timing of stimuli. The coded experiment, including triggers for the walking trials, was synced with the recording signal of the fNIRS system.

Equipment and Outcome Measures

For this study, a portable fNIRS system (NIRSport, NIRx Medical Technologies, NY, USA) was attached to a standardized cap (EasyCap GmBH, Herrsching, Germany), 58 cm in circumference, and equipped with eight sources and eight detectors with eight short separation channels according to the International 10–20 system for EEG to cover the PFC. The average source-detector separation distance was 30–40 mm. The arrangement of the optodes was performed with the fNIRS Optodes’ Location Decider (fOLD) toolbox.39 Additional information as to the sensitivity of the channels according to the fOLD toolbox is provided in the supplementary material. The cap was placed in the middle of the scalp between nasion and inion and between the left preauricular and the right preauricular point (reference point Cz). The applied fNIRS system operates at two different wavelengths (760/850 nm) and at a fixed sampling frequency of 7.81 Hz. The subareas captured are the dorsolateral PFC (Brodmann area 9) (DLPFC), frontopolar PFC (Brodman area 10) (FPC) and the frontal eye fields (Brodman area 8) (FEF). A fair to excellent inter-session reliability of the fNIRS-derived parameters in the subareas of the PFC measured while walking has been proven in healthy controls.40 In order to control physiological fNIRS signal confounders we used eight short-separation channels (∼8mm) which is sensitive to blood perfusion and oxygenation changes in the extracerebral tissue layer. Additionally the Polar H10 sensor chest strap device was used to determine heart rate as well as heart rate variability.

Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Data Processing

To process and convert the fNIRS data, Homer3 (version 1.32.4) was used.41 Non-existing values were replaced by spline interpolation (function hmrR PreprocessIntensity NAN). Channels with a too weak or too strong signal as well as a too high standard deviation were excluded (function: hmrR PruneChannels: data range = 1 × 10−2 to 1 × 107; signal-to-noise threshold = 2; source detector separation range: 0.0–45.0 mm). The preprocessed raw data were then converted to optical density data (function: hmR Intensity2OD).41 Using the spline interpolation and a digital Savitzky-Golay filter motion, artifacts were removed (function: hmR MotionCorrectSplineSG: p = 0.99; frame size = 15 s).42 The 3rd order Butterworth bandpass filter was applied to diminish physiological artifacts (function: hmrR BandpassFilt: Bandpass Filter OpticalDensity).43 Therefore, the high-pass filter was set at 0.01 Hz to minimize the proportion of oscillations associated with the vascular endothelial function.43 The low-pass filter was set at 0.09 Hz to primarily filter out the Mayer waves.44 Subsequently, the optical density data were converted to concentration data by the Beer-Lambert law adapting the differential path length factor to the age of each participant.45 Finally, the individual hemodynamic response function (HRF) was calculated with the ordinary least squared deconvolution method by utilizing a general linear model approach (function: hmrR GLM).46

The HRF was based on a consecutive sequence of Gaussian functions (width of the Gaussian 0.5 and temporal spacing between the consecutive Gaussian 0.5). The short separation regression was performed with the nearest short separation channel. The 3rd order polynomial drift baseline correction was applied. Subsequently, the data were processed by the MATLAB program (version R2020b, The MathWorks, Natick, Massachusetts, USA). Initially, the early phase of task onset (5 s) was eliminated for each subject to avoid transient effects of movement initiation on the hemodynamic response.40 Secondly, the last 5 s were eliminated to minimize the impact of the expected ending of the walking trial. Accordingly, data recorded during the time interval of 5–25 s from each walking trial, were analyzed. The relative oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) and deoxygenated hemoglobin (HbR) concentration data of each channel during this time interval were then averaged for each subject. Finally, the channels were merged into the subareas of the PFC as described above.

Gait measures

Gait was evaluated via three small, lightweight axial wearable accelerometers (APDM, Oregon, USA) positioned on the dorsum of both feet and at the level of the lumbosacral junction, attached with elastic straps. The sensors and the respective APDM’s Mobility LabTM software analyzed the spatio-temporal parameters of gait. This system is both accurate and repeatable for measuring spatio-temporal gait parameters.47,48 Since the focus of the present study was on PFC activity during walking, only the walking speed was analyzed.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics determined the demographics, walking speed, clinical characteristics, and hemodynamic PFC measures of the study sample. Normal distribution was verified using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Additionally, the relative HbO and HbR concentration data were examined with boxplots for each subarea of the PFC (DLPFC, FPC and FEF). In the event of outlier identification, the data were removed. Study groups were compared for age, walking speed and cognitive status (represented by the SDMT) by the t and chi-square test for gender. A general linear model performed repeated measures analysis of variance on HbO and HbR concentration data.

All analyses were performed using the SPSS software (version 27.0 for Windows; SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). All reported p-values were two-tailed. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. The figures illustrating the relative HbO concentration change in the PFC subareas during the four walking trials for each group were created using the R software program (R studio version 1.4.1717). The Ggplot2 library was utilized to create the plots by implementing the geom_smooth function to produce a curve estimating the conditional mean function. The generalized additive model method was applied.

Results

The clinical characteristics of the 35 participants are summarized in Table 1. No significant differences were observed between pwMS and healthy controls in terms of age and gender. The median Expanded Disability Status Scale score of the pwMS was 3.0 indicating mild disability; the mean disease duration from diagnoses was 7.5 (S.D.=4.9) years. All pwMS had undergone a relapsing-remitting clinical disease course. Significant differences between groups were observed for walking speeds in all four conditions. pwMS walking speed was ∼14% and ∼28% slower during ST forward and ST backward walking, respectively, compared with healthy controls. Moreover, walking speed was slower by 51% and 41% during ST backward walking compared with ST forward in pwMS and healthy controls, respectively. Furthermore, the addition of a cognitive DT reduced walking speed in both forward and backward walking conditions. Walking speed during DT forward was slower than ST forward by 11% and 9% in pwMS and healthy controls, respectively. Walking speed during DT backward was slower than ST backward by 30% and 18% in pwMS and healthy controls, respectively.

View this table:
Table 1.

Demographical and clinical data of the study sample

The relative HbO and HbR concentration in the PFC subareas according to the four walking conditions and groups are presented in Table 2. No differences were found in the hemodynamic measures in the PFC subareas between the four walking conditions in pwMS. Significant differences were observed between ST forward and DT forward walking for HbO concentration (−0.081 (S.D.=0.199) μmol/l vs. 0.101 (S.D.=0.221) μmol/l; p < 0.001) and HbR concentration (0.047 (S.D.=0.081) μmol/l vs. 0.001 (S.D.=0.053) μmol/l; p = 0.038) in the FEF in the healthy controls. Also, a significant difference was found in the relative HbO between ST forward with DT forward walking (−0.281 (S.D.=0.291) μmol/l vs. 0.064 (S.D.=0.439) μmol/l; p < 0.001) in the FPC in the healthy controls. In terms of the total group (pwMS and healthy controls), a significant difference was found between ST forward with ST backward walking (p = 0.039) and DT backward walking (p = 0.029) in the relative HbO concentration in the FPC. Moreover, a significant difference was found between ST forward and DT forward walking (p = 0.001) in the relative HbO concentration in the FEF. Non-significant scores were observed for group times walking condition in the relative HbO and HbR concentration measures.

View this table:
Table 2.

Mean (S.D.) of the relative oxy and deoxyhemoglobin concentrations in the subareas of the prefrontal cortex during all four walking conditions in the study groups.

The time course of the mean relative HbO concentration over the walking trials in each group is displayed in Figures 1-3. The relative HbO concentration was higher during ST backward walking compared with ST forward walking in pwMS (DLPFC, FEF) and the healthy controls (FEF, FPC), specifically during the initial part of the trial (0–10 s) (Figure 1a-c). The relative HbO concentration was higher during the DT forward walking in all PFC subareas compared with the ST forward walking for both groups (Figures 2a-c). There was also a larger reduction in the relative HbO concentration in the DLPFC and FEF during the second half of the trial (15–30 s) in pwMS compared with healthy controls. As for backward walking (Figures 3a-c), there was no distinct difference in the relative HbO concentration between ST backward walking with DT backward walking in pwMS. In contrast, the relative HbO concentration in the FEF and the FPC increased in the healthy controls during DT compared with ST backward walking, specifically during the second half of the trial (15–30 s).

Fig. 1a.
Fig. 1a.

HbO concentration in the DLPFC during ST forward and ST backward walking in pwMS (MS) and healthy controls (HC)

Fig. 1b.
Fig. 1b.

HbO concentration in the FEF during ST forward and ST backward walking in pwMS (MS) and healthy controls (HC)

Fig. 1c.
Fig. 1c.

HbO concentration in the FPC region during ST forward and ST backward walking in pwMS (MS) and healthy controls (HC)

Fig. 2a.
Fig. 2a.

HbO concentration in the DLPFC during ST forward and DT forward walking in pwMS (MS) and healthy controls (HC)

Fig. 2b.
Fig. 2b.

HbO concentration in the FEF during ST forward and DT forward walking in pwMS (MS) and healthy controls (HC)

Fig. 2c.
Fig. 2c.

HbO concentration in the FPC during ST forward and DT forward in pwMS (MS) and healthy controls (HC)

Fig. 3a.
Fig. 3a.

HbO concentration in the DLPFC during ST backward walking and DT backward walking in pwMS (MS) and healthy controls (HC)

Fig. 3b.
Fig. 3b.

HbO concentration in the FEF during ST backward and DT backward walking in pwMS (MS) and healthy controls (HC)

Fig. 3c.
Fig. 3c.

HbO concentration in the FPC during ST backward walking and DT backward walking in pwMS (MS) and healthy controls (HC)

Discussion

The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the differences in PFC hemodynamics during ST and DT forward as well as backward walking in pwMS. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate these differences, specifically, in respect of backward walking. Regarding our first hypothesis, the relative HbO concentration was higher during DT forward walking compared with ST forward walking in the FPC and FEF subareas for both groups but more pronounced in the healthy controls. As for our second hypothesis, the relative HbO concentration was higher during ST backward walking compared with ST forward walking in pwMS and healthy controls, specifically, during the initial part of the walking trial. Non-significant differences were observed between DT backward and DT forward in both groups.

Only a few previous studies have examined PFC activity via fNIRS while walking in pwMS,20,24,40,50 with only two studies demonstrating comparable results with our study, since they include ST and DT walking conditions.20,24 Chaparro et al examined PFC activation during treadmill walking (with/without weight bearing support) under ST and cognitive-motor DT conditions in a small group of pwMS (n = 10; EDSS = 3.7) and healthy controls (n = 12). Their main finding was a significantly higher HbO concentration during the DT walking condition (without weight bearing support) in pwMS compared with healthy controls.22 The same research group investigated the HbO concentration in the PFC during over ground ST and DT walking in a small sample of pwMS (n = 8) and older adults (n = 8).24 The HbO concentration in the PFC under ST and DT conditions were higher in pwMS compared to healthy adults. Nonetheless, the difference in the HbO concentration between ST to DT walking was less profound in pwMS classified as mildly disabled (EDSS < 4) compared with patients classified as moderately disabled.

These results are similar to our findings to the extent that the addition of a cognitive task to forward walking causes an increase in PFC activity. Nevertheless, our findings indicate that the increase in PFC activity during motor-cognitive DT is not much different between mildly disabled pwMS and healthy adults. The increased PFC activation is probably related to its role in key cognitive functions in pwMS. The circuit comprising the PFC, along with the caudate, globus pallidus and thalamus, plays a putative role in regulating attention and executive functions in pwMS.51 Therefore, the higher HbO concentration demonstrated during DT walking compared with ST walking, suggests an effective adaptive mechanism needed to deal with this relatively complex task in pwMS, particularly those patients with cognitive dysfunctions.12-14

An observation from our study is that the relative HbO concentration in the PFC often exhibited negative values during ST forward walking indicating a higher PFC activity during the baseline. This finding is consistent with prior literature showing reduced or very small increases in PFC activity during ST walking relative to baseline.52-54 This may be explained by heightened levels of attention and planning during task preparation, which then dissipates as automatic control processes at lower levels of the neuraxis take over during task performance.52-53 Another possible factor is that the HbO delivery to the PFC is reduced as blood is diverted to other regions (e.g., motor and visual cortex) that are important for walking.55

To date, there are limited and controversial data relating to brain activity during backward walking in pwMS, with the majority of studies focusing on related motor areas (e.g. supplementary motor area).56-58 With respect to PFC activity during backward walking, there are only studies on other populations such as healthy adults. Berchicci et al examined PFC activity (via EEG) during self-paced forward and backward stepping in a small group of young healthy adults (n = 11). They demonstrated that the activity in the PFC was elevated compared to baseline during forward and backward stepping tasks, but, was especially, enhanced for the latter.59 Recently, Takami et al. investigated changes in the PFC hemodynamics (via fNIRS) during ST forward and backward (treadmill) walking with speed misperception generated by virtual reality (VR). The authors found that during backward walking (after VR viewing), there was an increase in the PFC hemodynamics (mainly, the right region) compared with forward walking.60

Although the measurement systems and test settings diverge from our study (EEG vs. fNIRS and treadmill vs. overground walking), the results are similar indicating additional PFC activity during ST backward walking compared with ST forward walking. A possible interpretation might be the different cognitive load due to the complexity of the task. Forward walking is highly automatized in contrast to backward walking.61 Thus, backward walking is more cognitively demanding and requires more attentional resources as well as executive control.62 This has already been shown for other populations such as elderly and people with neurodegenerative diseases.63,64

Worth noting, the difference between backward walking and forward walking in our study was mainly reflected in a higher activation of the FPC and the FEF. The FPC plays a central role in higher cognitive functions such as planning, problem solving, and reasoning. The FEF is involved in motion information processing. The difference between forward and backward walking was less consistent in the DLPFC. Accordingly, future studies related to backward walking should further investigate the differences between the subareas of the PFC.

One general limitation of this study was that all included pwMS suffered from a relapsing-remitting clinical disease course, hence, the present results may not be specifically generalized to pwMS afflicted with a progressive disease type. Another technical limitation was that only one cap size (58 cm circumference) was used for all subjects. This may have led to inaccuracies in the measurement results.

Future studies should consider analyzing also other related brain areas such as the premotor cortex, supplementary motor area or the primary motor cortex to provide a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Unfortunately, this option was not possible with the fNIRS device applied in this study. Furthermore, in addition to the Serial-7 Subtraction Test used in this study, cognitive tests that reflect e.g. the executive functions (working memory, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility65 should be examined in more detail, especially in relation to the PFC activation during motor ST and motor-cognitive DT.

Conclusions

The current study presents innovative data on PFC activity during ST and motor-cognitive DT forward and backward walking in pwMS. According to our data these walking conditions impact the hemodynamics at the PFC, although, the difference between pwMS and healthy adults requires further clarification. Our findings should encourage future randomized clinical trials to examine the impact of an intervention program based on DT forward and backward walking on PFC activity along with cognitive function in the pwMS.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approval was obtained from the Sheba Medical Center Independent Ethics Committee prior to the commencement of the study (Ethics Ref: 5596-08/141210). All participants provided written informed consent.

Author contributions

Yana Kupchenko: Data curation, visualization, formal analysis, writing review and editing (equal).

Sapir Dreyer-Alster: Data curation, visualization, formal analysis, writing review and editing (equal).

Kim-Charline Broscheid: Conceptualization, resources, supervision, writing review and editing (equal).

Alon Kalron: Conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, supervision, writing original draft.

Funding

None

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Availability of data and Materials

Upon request from corresponding author

Legends to figures

For all figures the lines (complete and dotted) represent the mean value of the walking trial condition. The shaded area represents the standard deviation.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr. Lior Frid for his assistance in data collection.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Thompson AJ, Baranzini SE, Geurts J, et al. Multiple sclerosis. Lancet 2018; 391:1622–1636.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.
    Kalron A, Dvir Z, Achiron A. Walking while talking--difficulties incurred during the initial stages of multiple sclerosis disease process. Gait Posture 2010;32:332–335.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    Bethoux F. Gait disorders in multiple sclerosis. Continuum 2013;19:1007–1022.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    Kohn CG, Baker WL, Sidovar MF, et al. Walking speed and health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis. Patient 2014;7:55–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Comber L, Galvin R, Coote S. Gait deficits in people with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gait Posture 2017;51:25–35.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    Kalb R, Beier M, Benedict RH, et al. Recommendations for cognitive screening and management in multiple sclerosis care. Mult Scler 2018;24:1665–1680.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    DeLuca GC, Yates RL, Beale H, et al. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis: clinical, radiologic and pathologic insights. Brain Pathol 2015;25:79–98.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.
    Campbell J, Rashid W, Cercignani M, et al. Cognitive impairment among patients with multiple sclerosis: associations with employment and quality of life. Postgrad Med J 2017;93:143–147.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    D’hooghe MB, De Cock A, Van Remoortel A, et al. Correlations of health status indicators with perceived neuropsychological impairment and cognitive processing speed in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2019;39:101904.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    Rooney S, Ozkul C, Paul L. Correlates of dual-task performance in people with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review. Gait Posture 2020;81:172–182.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Postigo-Alonso B, Galvao-Carmona A, Benítez I, et al. Cognitive-motor interference during gait in patients with Multiple Sclerosis: a mixed methods systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2018;94: 126–148.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Veldkamp R, Goetschalckx M, Hulst HE, et al. Cognitive-motor interference in individuals with a neurologic disorder: A systematic review of neural correlates. Cogn Behav Neurol 2021;34:79–95.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Leone C, Patti F, Feys P. Measuring the cost of cognitive-motor dual tasking during walking in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2015;21:123–131.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Learmonth YC, Ensari I, Motl RW. Cognitive motor interference in multiple sclerosis: insights from a systematic quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017;98:1229–1240.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    Watanabe K, Funahashi S. Toward an understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying dual-task performance: contribution of comparative approaches using animal models. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2018;84:12–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Hermand E, Compagnat M, Dupuy O, Salle JY, Daviet JC, Perrochon A. Functional status is associated with prefrontal cortex activation in gait in subacute stroke patients: A functional near-infrared spectroscopy study. Front Neurol 2020;11:559227.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Maidan I, Hacham R, Galperin I, Giladi N, Holtzer R, Hausdorff JM, Mirelman A. Neural variability in the prefrontal cortex as a reflection of neural flexibility and stability in patients with parkinson disease. Neurology 2022;98(8):e839–e847.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Kim H, Fraser S. Neural correlates of dual-task walking in people with central neurological disorders: a systematic review. J Neurol 2022;269:2378–2402.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Coghe G, Fenu G, Lorefice L, Zuca E, et al. Association between brain atrophy and cognitive motor interference in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Scler Related Disord 2018;25: 208–211.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Chaparro G, Balto JM, Sandroff BM, et al. Frontal brain activation changes due to dual-tasking under partial body weight support conditions in older adults with multiple sclerosis. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2017;14:65.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Saleh S, Sandroff BM, Vitiello T, et al. The role of premotor areas in dual tasking in healthy controls and persons with multiple sclerosis: an fNIRS imaging study. Front Behav Neurosci 2018;12:296.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    Argento O, Spano B, Pisani V, Incerti CC, Bozzali M, Foti C, Caltagirone C, Nocentini U. Dual-task performance in multiple sclerosis in ‘patients: cerebellum matters? Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2021;36:517–526.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.
    Fritz NE, Kloos AD, Kegelmeyer DA, et al. Supplementary moto area connectivity and dual-task walking variability in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 2019;396:159164.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Hernandez ME, Holtzer R, Chaparro G, Jean K, Balto JM, Sandroff BM, et al. Brain activation changes during locomotion in middle-aged to older adults with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 2016;370:277–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    Wilcox T, Biondi M. fNIRS in the developmental sciences. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2015;6(3):263–83.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    Fritz NE, Worstell AM, Kloos AD, et al. Backward walking measures are sensitive to age-related changes in mobility and balance. Gait Posture 2013;37(4):593–597.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    Johansson H, Lundin-Olsson L, Littbrand H, et al. Cognitive function and walking velocity in people with dementia; a comparison of backward and forward walking. Gait Posture 2017;58:481–486.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Katirci Kirmaci ZI, Adiguzel H, Erel S, et al. Validity and reliability of the 3-meter backward walk test in patients with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2022;63: 103842.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Callisaya ML, Blizzard L, McGinley JL, et al. Sensorimotor factors affecting gait variability in older people--a population-based study. J Gerontol es A Biol Sci Med Sci 2010;65A:386–392.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    Peterson DS, Huisinga JM, Spain RI, et al. Characterization of compensatory stepping in people with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2016;97:513–521.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Wajda DA, Sandroff BM, Pula JH, et al. Effects of walking direction and cognitive challenges on gait in persons with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Int 2013;2013:859323.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Edwards EM, Kegelmeyer DA, Kloos AD, et al. Backward walking and dual-task assessment improve identification of gait impairments and fall risk in individuals with MS. Mult Scler Int 2020;2020:6707414.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    Hoogkamer W, Meyns P, Duysens J. Steps forward in understanding backward gait: from basic circuits to rehabilitation. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2014;42:23–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018;17:162–173.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Strober L, DeLuca J, Benedict RH, et al. Symbol Digit Modalities Test: A valid clinical trial endpoint for measuring cognition in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2019;25:1781–1790.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, et al. Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability: the 12-Item MS Walking Scale (MSWS-12). Neurology 2003;60:31–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Kavé G. Phonemic fluency, semantic fluency, and difference scores: normative data for adult Hebrew speakers. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2005;27(6):690–699.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    Peirce J, Gray JR, Simpson S, et al. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behav Res Methods 2019;51(1):195–203.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    Zimeo Morais GA, Balardin JB, Sato JR. fNIRS Optodes’ Location Decider (fOLD): a toolbox for probe arrangement guided by brain regions-of-interest. Sci Rep 2018;8:3341.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    Broscheid KC, Hamacher D, Lamprecht J, et al. Inter-session reliability of fFunctional near-infrared spectroscopy at the prefrontal cortex while walking in multiple sclerosis. Brain Sci 2020;10:643.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Huppert TJ, Diamond SG, Franceschini MA, et al. Hom ER: a review of time-series analysis methods for near-infrared spectroscopy of the brain. Appl Opt 2009;48:D280–298.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  42. 42.↵
    Jahani S, Setarehdan SK, Boas DA, et al. Motion artifact detection and correction in functional near-infrared spectroscopy: a new hybrid method based on spline interpolation method and Savitzky-Golay filtering. Neurophotonics 2018;5:15003.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    Menant JC, Maidan I, Alcock L, et al. A consensus guide to using functional near-infrared spectroscopy in posture and gait research. Gait Posture 2020;82:254–265.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Pinti P, Scholkmann F, Hamilton A, et al. Current status and issues regarding pre-processing of fNIRS neuroimaging data: an investigation of diverse signal filtering methods within a general linear model framework. Front Hum Neurosci 2018;12:505.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    Scholkmann F, Wolf M. General equation for the differential pathlength factor of the frontal human head depending on wavelength and age. J Biomed Opt 2013;18:105004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    Ye JC, Tak S, Jang KE, et al. NIRS-SPM: statistical parametric mapping for near-infrared spectroscopy. Neuroimage 2009;44:428–447.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    Washabaugh EP, Kalyanaraman T, Adamczyk PG, et al. Validity and repeatability of inertial measurement units for measuring gait parameters. Gait Posture 2017;55:87–93.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Spain RI, St George RJ, Salarian A, et al. Body-worn motion sensors detect balance and gait deficits in people with multiple sclerosis who have normal walking speed. Gait Posture 2012;35:573–578.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  49. 50.↵
    Broscheid KC, Behrens M, Dettmers C, et al. Effects of a 6-min treadmill walking test on dual-task gait performance and prefrontal hemodynamics in people with multiple sclerosis. Front Neurol 2022;13:822952.
    OpenUrl
  50. 51.↵
    Meng D, Welton T, Elsarraj A, et al. Dorsolateral prefrontal circuit effective connectivity mediates the relationship between white matter structure and PASAT-3 performance in multiple sclerosis. Hum Brain Mapp 2021;42(2):495–509.
    OpenUrl
  51. 52.↵
    Clark DJ, Rose DK, Ring SA, Porges EC. Utilization of central nervous system resources for preparation and performance of complex walking tasks in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci 2014;6:217.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 53.↵
    Holtzer R, Mahoney JR, Izzetoglu M, Wang C, England S, Verghese J. Online fronto-cortical control of simple and attention-demanding locomotion in humans. Neuroimage 2015;112:152–159.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 54.↵
    Lin MI, Lin KH. Walking while Performing Working Memory Tasks Changes the Prefrontal Cortex Hemodynamic Activations and Gait Kinematics. Front Behav Neurosci 2016;10:92.
    OpenUrl
  54. 55.↵
    Beurskens R, Helmich I, Rein R, Bock O. Age-related changes in prefrontal activity during walking in dual-task situations: a fNIRS study. Int J Psychophysiol 2014;92(3):122–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 56.↵
    Kurz MJ, Wilson TW, Arpin DJ. Stride-time variability and sensorimotor cortical activation during walking. Neuroimage 2012;59:1602–1607.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  56. 57.
    Lin NH, Liu CH, Lee P, et al. Backward walking induces significantly larger upper-mu-rhythm suppression effects than forward walking Does. Sensors (Basel) 2020;20:7250.
    OpenUrl
  57. 58.↵
    Groff BR, Antonellis P, Schmid KK, et al. Stride-time variability is related to sensorimotor cortical activation during forward and backward walking. Neurosci Lett 2019;692:150–158.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  58. 59.↵
    Berchicci M, Russo Y, Bianco V, et al. Stepping forward, stepping backward: a movement-related cortical potential study unveils distinctive brain activities. Behav Brain Res 2020;388:112663
    OpenUrl
  59. 60.↵
    Takami A, Taguchi J, Makino M. Changes in cerebral blood flow during forward and backward walking with speed misperception generated by virtual reality. J Phys Ther Sci 2021;33(8):565–569.
    OpenUrl
  60. 61.↵
    Matsuda Y, Sugimoto M, Inami M, Kitazaki M. Peripersonal space in the front, rear, left and right directions for audio-tactile multisensory integration. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):11303.
    OpenUrl
  61. 62.↵
    Miller EK, Cohen JD. An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci 2001;24:167–202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  62. 63.↵
    Laufer Y. Effect of age on characteristics of forward and backward gait at preferred and accelerated walking speed. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2005;60(5):627–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  63. 64.↵
    Foster H, DeMark L, Spigel PM, Rose DK, Fox EJ. The effects of backward walking training on balance and mobility in an individual with chronic incomplete spinal cord injury: A case report. Physiother Theory Pract 2016;32(7):536–45.
    OpenUrl
  64. 65.↵
    Diamond A. Executive functions. In: Annual review of psychology 2013:64:135–168.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted October 20, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Prefrontal hemodynamics during forward and backward walking, with and without a cognitive task, in people with MS: An fNIRS study
Yana Kupchenko, Sapir Dreyer-Alster, Kim-Charline Broscheid, Alon Kalron
medRxiv 2022.10.18.22281209; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.10.18.22281209
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area