The Effects Of A Cognitive Task On Hop Test Performance

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive secondary task (CST) activities can often result in prioritization of either the motor or cognitive task. Yet there is a paucity of research regarding the effects of a cognitive task on athletic performance specific to any aspect of the ever changing “return to play” criteria. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to expand upon a previous pilot study and assess the impact of a CST on hop-test performance and its potential impact on one aspect of the currently utilized return to play battery for lower extremity injuries. METHODS: 60 recreationally active participants (Age: 21.03 yr ± 1.7; Height: 170.9 cm ± 8.3; Weight: 73.7 kg ± 15.5; BMI: 25.1 ± 4.1 kg/m2) completed the following protocol: Participants performed a familiarization trial of the three components of the Single Leg Hop Test (Single Hop for Distance (H1), Triple Hop for Distance (H2), and Triple Cross Hop for Distance (H3), as well as cognitive tasks (counting backwards by 1 (C1) or 7 (C7), from a number randomly selected between 80-199). The participants randomly completed the H1, H2, and H3 in conjunction with a randomized CST involving no cognitive task (C0), C1 or C7 for bilateral lower extremities. Trials were repeated if a participant delayed starting the test on cue, failed to provide ≥2 correct responses in C1, failed to provide ≥1 correct response in C7, and/or failed to maintain landing position. Participants were allowed 3 repeated attempts, before a failed attempt was recorded. Displacement from the start point to the distal portion the landing foot was recorded as distance (D). Time (T) to complete the task was also recorded. D and T within and between subjects were analyzed. RESULTS: Multivariate ANOVA with subsequent Tukey Post-Hoc testing revealed p > .05 during all C conditions in terms of D for all hop conditions. Relative to T, all cognitive conditions were significantly different (p < .05) from one another across all Hop tests. Total mean time for cognitive tasks was C0 = 2.3 s ± 0.99, C1 = 2.8 s ± 1.3, C7 = 3.0 s ± 1.3. CONCLUSIONS: Participants demonstrated a prioritization toward completing the motor task, evidenced by a greater time to complete the task in an effort to maintain performance output. This demonstrates reduction in movement efficiency, which could compromise task success as attentional demands are challenged.