TY  - JOUR
A1  - Stelzel, Christine
A1  - Bohle, Hannah
A1  - Schauenburg, Gesche
A1  - Walter, Henrik
A1  - Granacher, Urs
A1  - Rapp, Michael Armin
A1  - Heinzel, Stephan
T1  - Contribution of the Lateral Prefrontal Cortex to Cognitive-Postural Multitasking
JF  - Frontiers in psychologie
N2  - There is evidence for cortical contribution to the regulation of human postural control. Interference from concurrently performed cognitive tasks supports this notion, and the lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) has been suggested to play a prominent role in the processing of purely cognitive as well as cognitive-postural dual tasks. The degree of cognitive-motor interference varies greatly between individuals, but it is unresolved whether individual differences in the recruitment of specific lPFC regions during cognitive dual tasking are associated with individual differences in cognitive-motor interference. Here, we investigated inter-individual variability in a cognitive-postural multitasking situation in healthy young adults (n = 29) in order to relate these to inter-individual variability in lPFC recruitment during cognitive multitasking. For this purpose, a oneback working memory task was performed either as single task or as dual task in order to vary cognitive load. Participants performed these cognitive single and dual tasks either during upright stance on a balance pad that was placed on top of a force plate or during fMRI measurement with little to no postural demands. We hypothesized dual one-back task performance to be associated with lPFC recruitment when compared to single one-back task performance. In addition, we expected individual variability in lPFC recruitment to be associated with postural  performance costs during concurrent dual one-back performance. As expected, behavioral performance costs in postural sway during dual-one back performance largely varied between individuals and so did lPFC recruitment during dual one-back performance. Most importantly, individuals who recruited the right mid-lPFC to a larger degree during dual one-back performance also showed greater postural sway as measured by larger performance costs in total center of pressure displacements. This effect was selective to the high-load dual one-back task and suggests a crucial role of the right lPFC in allocating resources during cognitivemotor interference. Our study provides further insight into the mechanisms underlying cognitive-motor multitasking and its impairments.
KW  - balance
KW  - dual task
KW  - fMRI
KW  - postural control
KW  - working memory
Y1  - 2018
U6  - https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01075
SN  - 1664-1078
VL  - 9
PB  - Frontiers
CY  - Lausanne
ER  - 
TY  - GEN
A1  - Stelzel, Christine
A1  - Bohle, Hannah
A1  - Schauenburg, Gesche
A1  - Walter, Henrik
A1  - Granacher, Urs
A1  - Rapp, Michael Armin
A1  - Heinzel, Stephan
T1  - Contribution of the Lateral Prefrontal Cortex to Cognitive-Postural Multitasking
T2  - Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe
N2  - There is evidence for cortical contribution to the regulation of human postural control. Interference from concurrently performed cognitive tasks supports this notion, and the lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) has been suggested to play a prominent role in the processing of purely cognitive as well as cognitive-postural dual tasks. The degree of cognitive-motor interference varies greatly between individuals, but it is unresolved whether individual differences in the recruitment of specific lPFC regions during cognitive dual tasking are associated with individual differences in cognitive-motor interference. Here, we investigated inter-individual variability in a cognitive-postural multitasking situation in healthy young adults (n = 29) in order to relate these to inter-individual variability in lPFC recruitment during cognitive multitasking. For this purpose, a oneback working memory task was performed either as single task or as dual task in order to vary cognitive load. Participants performed these cognitive single and dual tasks either during upright stance on a balance pad that was placed on top of a force plate or during fMRI measurement with little to no postural demands. We hypothesized dual one-back task performance to be associated with lPFC recruitment when compared to single one-back task performance. In addition, we expected individual variability in lPFC recruitment to be associated with postural  performance costs during concurrent dual one-back performance. As expected, behavioral performance costs in postural sway during dual-one back performance largely varied between individuals and so did lPFC recruitment during dual one-back performance. Most importantly, individuals who recruited the right mid-lPFC to a larger degree during dual one-back performance also showed greater postural sway as measured by larger performance costs in total center of pressure displacements. This effect was selective to the high-load dual one-back task and suggests a crucial role of the right lPFC in allocating resources during cognitivemotor interference. Our study provides further insight into the mechanisms underlying cognitive-motor multitasking and its impairments.
T3  - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe - 489 
KW  - balance
KW  - dual task
KW  - fMRI
KW  - postural control
KW  - working memory
Y1  - 2018
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-421140
SN  - 1866-8364
IS  - 489
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Prieske, Olaf
A1  - Krüger, Tom
A1  - Aehle, Markus
A1  - Bauer, Erik
A1  - Granacher, Urs
T1  - Effects of Resisted Sprint Training and Traditional Power Training on Sprint, Jump, and Balance Performance in Healthy Young Adults
BT  - A Randomized Controlled Trial
JF  - Frontiers in Physiology
N2  - Power training programs have proved to be effective in improving components of physical fitness such as speed. According to the concept of training specificity, it was postulated that exercises must attempt to closely mimic the demands of the respective activity. When transferring this idea to speed development, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted sprint (RST) vs. traditional power training (TPT) on physical fitness in healthy young adults. Thirty-five healthy, physically active adults were randomly assigned to a RST (n = 10, 23 ± 3 years), a TPT (n = 9, 23 ± 3 years), or a passive control group (n = 16, 23 ± 2 years). RST and TPT exercised for 6 weeks with three training sessions/week each lasting 45–60 min. RST comprised frontal and lateral sprint exercises using an expander system with increasing levels of resistance that was attached to a treadmill (h/p/cosmos). TPT included ballistic strength training at 40% of the one-repetition-maximum for the lower limbs (e.g., leg press, knee extensions). Before and after training, sprint (20-m sprint), change-of-direction speed (T-agility test), jump (drop, countermovement jump), and balance performances (Y balance test) were assessed. ANCOVA statistics revealed large main effects of group for 20-m sprint velocity and ground contact time (0.81 ≤ d ≤ 1.00). Post-hoc tests showed higher sprint velocity following RST and TPT (0.69 ≤ d ≤ 0.82) when compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to 4.5% for RST [90%CI: (−1.1%;10.1%), d = 1.23] and 2.6% for TPT [90%CI: (0.4%;4.8%), d = 1.59]. Additionally, ground contact times during sprinting were shorter following RST and TPT (0.68 ≤ d ≤ 1.09) compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to −6.3% for RST [90%CI: (−11.4%;−1.1%), d = 1.45) and −2.7% for TPT [90%CI: (−4.2%;−1.2%), d = 2.36]. Finally, effects for change-of-direction speed, jump, and balance performance varied from small-to-large. The present findings indicate that 6 weeks of RST and TPT produced similar effects on 20-m sprint performance compared with a passive control in healthy and physically active, young adults. However, no training-related effects were found for change-of-direction speed, jump and balance performance. We conclude that both training regimes can be applied for speed development.
KW  - specificity
KW  - sprinting
KW  - jumping
KW  - change-of-direction speed
KW  - balance
Y1  - 2018
U6  - https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00156
SN  - 1664-042X
VL  - 9
SP  - 1
EP  - 10
PB  - Frontiers Research Foundation
CY  - Lausanne
ER  - 
TY  - GEN
A1  - Prieske, Olaf
A1  - Krüger, Tom
A1  - Aehle, Markus
A1  - Bauer, Erik
A1  - Granacher, Urs
T1  - Effects of Resisted Sprint Training and Traditional Power Training on Sprint, Jump, and Balance Performance in Healthy Young Adults
BT  - A Randomized Controlled Trial
T2  - Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe
N2  - Power training programs have proved to be effective in improving components of physical fitness such as speed. According to the concept of training specificity, it was postulated that exercises must attempt to closely mimic the demands of the respective activity. When transferring this idea to speed development, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted sprint (RST) vs. traditional power training (TPT) on physical fitness in healthy young adults. Thirty-five healthy, physically active adults were randomly assigned to a RST (n = 10, 23 ± 3 years), a TPT (n = 9, 23 ± 3 years), or a passive control group (n = 16, 23 ± 2 years). RST and TPT exercised for 6 weeks with three training sessions/week each lasting 45–60 min. RST comprised frontal and lateral sprint exercises using an expander system with increasing levels of resistance that was attached to a treadmill (h/p/cosmos). TPT included ballistic strength training at 40% of the one-repetition-maximum for the lower limbs (e.g., leg press, knee extensions). Before and after training, sprint (20-m sprint), change-of-direction speed (T-agility test), jump (drop, countermovement jump), and balance performances (Y balance test) were assessed. ANCOVA statistics revealed large main effects of group for 20-m sprint velocity and ground contact time (0.81 ≤ d ≤ 1.00). Post-hoc tests showed higher sprint velocity following RST and TPT (0.69 ≤ d ≤ 0.82) when compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to 4.5% for RST [90%CI: (−1.1%;10.1%), d = 1.23] and 2.6% for TPT [90%CI: (0.4%;4.8%), d = 1.59]. Additionally, ground contact times during sprinting were shorter following RST and TPT (0.68 ≤ d ≤ 1.09) compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to −6.3% for RST [90%CI: (−11.4%;−1.1%), d = 1.45) and −2.7% for TPT [90%CI: (−4.2%;−1.2%), d = 2.36]. Finally, effects for change-of-direction speed, jump, and balance performance varied from small-to-large. The present findings indicate that 6 weeks of RST and TPT produced similar effects on 20-m sprint performance compared with a passive control in healthy and physically active, young adults. However, no training-related effects were found for change-of-direction speed, jump and balance performance. We conclude that both training regimes can be applied for speed development.
T3  - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe - 383 
KW  - specificity
KW  - sprinting
KW  - jumping
KW  - change-of-direction speed
KW  - balance
Y1  - 2018
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-409645
IS  - 383
ER  -