The effect of prioritization over cognitive-motor interference in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and healthy controls.

The cognitive-motor interference (CMI) produced by simultaneous performance of a cognitive and a motor task has been proposed as a marker of real-life impairment of people with Multiple Sclerosis (pwMS), yet there is no consensus on the dual task (DT) procedure. This study aimed to compare DT performance of pwMS and healthy controls (HC) under different instructions and to examine its association with neuropsychological and clinical variables. PwMS (N = 23; relapsing-remitting course) and HC (N = 24) completed the cognitive (Verbal Fluency) and motor (walking) tasks under three conditions: independently or as single task (ST), both tasks simultaneously at best capacity or double prioritization (DT-DP), and only the cognitive task at best capacity while walking at preferred speed or cognitive prioritization (DT-CP). Compared to HC, pwMS walked significantly slower and produced less correct words under all conditions. The distance walked by pwMS and HC significantly differed between conditions (DT-CP< DT-DP< ST). PwMS produced more words during ST respective to DT-DP and DT-CP, with no difference between both DT conditions. HC showed no differences in cognitive performance between conditions. Motor and cognitive dual-task costs (DTC) were similar between groups. Only in pwMS, the cognitive DTC of DT-DP was different from zero. CMI measures correlated with neuropsychological, symptomatic, physiological (cognitive event-related potentials) and clinical variables. These results suggest that cognitive performance while walking is impaired in pwMS, but not in HC. CMI over cognitive performance might be a potential early marker of cognitive decline in pwMS, which may be enhanced by the instruction to prioritize both tasks in DT.

Introduction

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neurodegenerative disease that affects the central nervous system, leading to cognitive and motor deficits among others. Between 40–70% of the people with MS (pwMS) exhibit cognitive impairment detectable with neuropsychological evaluation [1,2] and 50–80% have balance and gait dysfunction [3], which might begin early in the disease course [2,3].

Traditionally, cognitive and motor symptoms have been assessed independently. However, in daily life both processes often coexist (e.g. walk while talking to somebody), so it is time to also include in the standard evaluation a dual task (DT) assessment in which a motor and a cognitive task are performed simultaneously, as it might better reproduce the real-life challenges for pwMS [4].

During the DT assessment, it is common that the performance of either one or both tasks decrements compared to the single task (ST) condition, which represents the so called cognitive-motor interference (CMI). To the extent that the tasks in the DT share the same cognitive -and neural- resources, there would be more competence for these limited resources and, hence, more CMI [5]. Consequently, it is important to select the appropriate type and complexity of the tasks for the DT assessment, especially when evaluating a clinical population such as the pwMS, whose cognitive deficits in the first stages of the disease might be mild and even remain unnoticed in clinical evaluations [6,7]. In line with this, by choosing the proper combination of cognitive and motor tasks, the DT might stand as a “brain stress test” [8] and CMI as an early marker of subclinical cognitive decline in pwMS.

Overall, the evidence to date shows that there is CMI over motor parameters in pwMS, but so there is in healthy controls (HC), and the magnitude of CMI does not differ between these groups [9]. However, it is worth noting that the same reduction in performance or CMI when pwMS already perform significantly worse at ST, could represent a greater impact in their everyday-lives. It has further been suggested that there might be a differential pattern of intragroup changes from ST to DT that should be considered for the assessment of CMI [10].

While a variety of tasks have been used for the DT assessment in pwMS, it has been proposed that the Verbal Fluency task while walking might be sensitive and specific to CMI in pwMS. However, more research is needed in this respect, concerning the instructions for the DT assessment, the effect over the cognitive task and including a matched sample of HC [4,9,10].

Considering this evidence, the present study comprised a DT consisting on the combination of walking and Verbal Fluency task, under two DT conditions respective to the instruction of prioritization: both tasks at best capacity or double priority condition (DT-DP) and performing only cognitive task at best capacity while walking at preferred speed or cognitive priority condition (DT-CP).

The present study aimed to: 1) determine the extent to which DT performance affects motor and cognitive parameters in pwMS compared to HC, 2) explore the effect of different instructions of prioritization in the DT in order to guide clinical decision-making regarding the selection of the DT procedure and 3) examine whether CMI over cognitive and motor parameters is associated with neuropsychological, symptomatic, physiological (cognitive event-related potentials) and clinical variables, as one of the interests is to know whether CMI could be used as marker of functional impairment in pwMS.

It was hypothesized that pwMS would have more CMI than HC and that the instructions given for the DT would lead to a gradient in CMI, being the performance better in ST than in any DT, and in DT-CP better than in DT-DP -i.e. highest CMI-, according to the increased demand and level of competence between both tasks for limited cognitive resources.

Method

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and its later amendments. The experimental protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the Reina Sofía University Hospital (Cordoba, Spain). The procedures of the study were explained to the participants, who provided written informed consent prior to data recollection.

Participants

This observational case-control study included a convenience sample of 23 pwMS and 24 HC. PwMS were recruited from the neurology service. HC were recruited by word-of-mouth. Both participants with MS and HC were fluent in Spanish. For the pwMS, the most recent Expanded Disease Severity Scale (EDSS) [11] score, disease duration, number of relapses and time from last relapse parameters were extracted from the health record.

The inclusion criteria for pwMS were: (i) neurologist-confirmed diagnosis of relapsing-remitting MS according to the 2010 revised McDonald diagnostic criteria [12,13]; (ii) relapse-free for at least one month; (iii) EDSS score ≤ 6.5 representing the need of bilateral constant help to walk.

Participants from both groups (pwMS and HC) were excluded from the study if: (i) scored equal or above 29 in the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), which is the cutoff for severe depression [14,15]; (ii) had neurologic disease (other than MS for the pwMS group), psychiatric disease, visual acuity or field deficits, or any musculoskeletal condition that could interfere with the test procedure.

Experimental procedure

All participants completed demographic questionnaires, DT assessments, neuropsychological tests and symptomatic scales. Additionally, pwMS underwent an electroencephalography (EEG) recording, which was always performed in the last place. The participants could rest between tasks in the DT, between different tests, and between trials in the EEG recording.

Walking assessments (ST and DT) were performed in a quiet hallway. The rest of the assessment (cognitive ST, neuropsychological, symptomatic, and EEG recording) was performed in a small and quiet room. Complete testing took approximately 2.5 hours.

Dual-task assessment

The DT assessment consisted on the performance of both cognitive (i.e. Verbal Fluency Test) and motor (i.e. walking) tasks under three conditions: independently at best capacity or single task (ST) (“say as many words as possible” or “walk as fast as possible”), both tasks simultaneously at best capacity or DT with double prioritization (DT-DP) (“walk as fast possible while reciting as many words as possible”), and performing only the cognitive task at best capacity while walking at preferred speed or DT with cognitive prioritization (DT-CP) (“say as many words as possible while walking at your preferred speed. The most important is to say as many words as possible”). The tasks were performed for 60 s under every condition and always in the same order (ST cognitive, ST motor, DT-DP, DT-CP). The selection of these two priority conditions and the order for performance was based on a previous study in older adults without dementia [16].

During the phonological Verbal Fluency Test, participants orally generated as many words as possible starting with a certain letter. Based on the “Neuronorma” study in Spanish population, the selected words were respectively for each trial: “P” (ST), “M” (DT-DP), “R” (DT-CP) [17]. One experimenter walked nearby the side of the participant while writing down the words generated. At the same time, a second experimenter walked 1 m after the participant and videotaped the performance from the back. Both instruments were used to obtain the number of correct words uttered by the participant. These experimenters assured safety of the participant while walking.

Participants completed all walking (ST and DT) trials along a 24 m long path including a 0.6 m radius in both ends until told to stop by one of the experimenters, who set the chronometer for each trial at 60 s. In this moment, the experimenter set a mark on the floor for measuring afterwards the total distance walked by the participant in each trial.

Therefore, the dual-task measures included distance walked and the number of correct words generated as direct DT scores. Dual-task cost (DTC) scores were also calculated for the motor and cognitive measures in the DT assessment according to the widely used equation [18]:

Neuropsychological assessment

The neuropsychological assessment included the administration of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) -in its written version- [19], which is recognized as a measure of cognitive processing speed and has been widely used for the cognitive evaluation of pwMS [20]. The Five Digit Test (FDT) was employed for the assessment of executive function [21]. It consists of four trials of increasing controlled attentional processes: reading numbers, counting, choosing to count under incongruent numeric stimuli and, shifting between reading and counting. The FDT yields a measure of time to complete each trial and two indexes of inhibition and flexibility (the lower the index, the better the cognitive process). The Test de Aprendizaje Verbal España-Complutense (TAVEC), which is the Spanish version of the California Verbal Learning Test -CVLT- [22], was included for the evaluation of episodic verbal memory [23] with three primary measures: Total trials 1–5, which will hereinafter be referred to as Immediate recall, Short-delay free recall and Long-delay free recall.

Symptomatic assessment

The symptomatic assessment included: the BDI-II, which was also used for selection criteria as previously specified [14,15], the Spanish adaptation of Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 Instrument (MSQOL-54) [24,25] and the Daily Fatigue Impact Scale (D-FIS) [26], which has been proved as a feasible and valid instrument for measuring MS-related fatigue [27].

EEG recording

EEG recordings were performed for the assessment of brain activity of pwMS in relation to an auditory selective attentional task. During the recording, participants were sitting on chair, inside a quiet room. The recording was performed with Nicolet™ Viking Quest system (Natus Medical Incorporated, San Carlos, CA, USA) by using 4 bipolar channels, referenced to the contralateral mastoid, ground electrode placed on the forehead, band width 0.1–100 Hz and sampling frequency of 256 Hz. Disk-scalp electrodes were placed according to the 10–10 International System [28]: Cz, Pz, P7 and P8.

The Viking software was used for the semiautomatic detection of latency and amplitude parameters of event-related potentials (ERPs): P3, P1 and N1 components.

During the EEG recording participants performed an auditory oddball task, consisting on three blocks with 200 trials each, and a pause of at least 1 minute between blocks. There were two sets of stimuli: a 1000Hz tone as target or oddball stimulus and a 500Hz tone as standard or frequent stimulus. All tones had an intensity from 72–100 Db, a duration of 50-150ms and were separated with a SOA (stimulus onset asynchrony) of 1 second. In total, each block consisted of 50 target and 150 standard stimuli. The recording was performed with eyes opened.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using Statistica 10 (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK, USA) and IBM SPSS 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) softwares. Descriptive statistics were generated for two groups: pwMS and HC. Normal data distribution was evaluated with Shapiro-Wilk normality test. To compare demographic characteristics between groups, T-Tests were used for the quantitative variables and Pearson chi-square for the categorical variables. Single sample T-Tests were used to compare the mean motor and cognitive DTC scores against a zero mean (i.e. no cost). The analysis of motor parameters in direct DT scores was performed with a two-factorial repeated measures ANOVA (three conditions x two groups) and Bonferroni’s post-hoc test. Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Test were used for the comparison of direct cognitive scores and DTC scores between conditions in each group (intragroup analysis). For between-groups comparisons, either T-Test or Mann-Whitney U Test were used according to the normality of the distribution and significance was adjusted for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni’s correction. Effect sizes were calculated for ANOVA’s main and interaction effects with partial eta-squared (η2) interpreted as small, moderate, and large, based on values of .01, .06, and .14, respectively; and for mean contrasts with Cohen’s d, which was equally interpreted based on values of 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8, respectively [29]. Correlation analyses between CMI measures with neuropsychological, symptomatic and clinical variables were performed with Spearman’s Rho.

Results

Description of the sample

23 pwMS and relapsing-remitting course (18 women, 5 men) with a mean ± SD age of 46.03 ± 8.07 years, MS duration of 8.34 ± 6.41 years, time from last relapse of 2.65 ± 2.04 years and EDSS median 2 (interquartile range: 2) (range 0–5.5) were tested. None of them required assistance for walking. (See Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1

Comparison of demographic, neuropsychological and symptomatic features of pwMS and HC (mean ± SD).

	PwMS (n = 23)	HC (n = 24)	p- value c	PwMS adjusted scores	HC adjusted scores
Age (years)	46.03 ± 8.07	41.39 ± 11.38	0.11
Gender (f/m)	18/5	16/8	0.37
Years of education	12.78 ± 4.13 [5–19]	14.75 ± 3.26 [6–20]	0.08
SDMT (n correct)	44 ± 14.33	57.96 ± 13.01	0.001*	Sc = 8.4 ± 2.9	Sc = 10.8 ± 3
FDT- Reading a	0.67 ± 0.13	0.67 ± 0.11	0.87	Pc = 29.7 ± 24.1	Pc = 50.1 ± 31.3
FDT- Counting a	0.72 ± 0.12	0.73 ± 0.07	0.74	Pc = 26.1 ± 24.1	Pc = 48.7 ± 30.2
FDT- Choosing a	1.11 ± 0.16	1.13 ± 0.11	0.57	Pc = 36.3 ± 28.6	Pc = 52.5 ± 29.2
FDT- Shifting a	1.5 ± 0.26	1.47 ± 0.13	0.59	Pc = 39.9 ± 32	Pc = 52.4 ± 27.6
FDT- Inhibition (seconds)	15.26 ± 9.16	13.55 ± 7.26	0.36	Pc = 50 ± 31.5	Pc = 53.7 ± 28.5
FDT- Flexibility (seconds)	33.22 ± 24.03	23.12 ± 8.59	0.19	Pc = 46.3 ± 35.9	Pc = 56.5 ± 27.3
TAVEC- Immediate recall (Trials 1–5) (n correct words)	54.48 ± 13.08	59.21 ± 9.4	0.16	Z = 0.13 ± 1.22	Z = 0.5 ± 1.06
TAVEC- Short-delay free recall (n correct words)	11.3 ± 4.13	12.75 ± 2.33	0.45	Z = 0 ± 1.45	Z = 0.33 ± 0.92
TAVEC- Long-delay free recall (n correct words)	11.65 ± 3.93	13.17 ± 2.27	0.27	Z = -0.35 ± 1.58	Z = 0.08 ± 1.14
BDI-II (score 0–63)	15.7 ± 7.86	4.5 ± 3.95	< 0.001*
D-FIS b(score 0–36)	15 ± 9.53	4.33 ± 4.1	< 0.001*
MSQOL-54—Physical health composite (score 0–100)	52.38 ± 23.37	85.31 ± 8.82	< 0.001*
MSQOL-54—Mental health composite (score 0–100)	60.5 ± 21.61	86.28 ± 8.91	< 0.001*
MSQOL-54—Overall quality of life (score 0–100)	64.85 ± 14.93	83.96 ± 11.28	< 0.001*

Abbreviations: pwMS, people with multiple sclerosis; HC, healthy controls; SDMT, Symbol Digit Modalities Test; FDT, Five Digit Test; TAVEC, Test de Aprendizaje Verbal España Complutense; BDI-II, Beck Depression Inventory II; D-FIS, Daily Fatigue Impact Scale; MSQOL-54, Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54; Sc, scalar score; Pc: percentile; Z, Standard score.

Direct scores shown correspond to the raw time scores (seconds) corrected for speed per participant as in Faust & Balota (1997). Adjusted scores correspond to the Pc for the raw scores (uncorrected for speed).

D-FIS score is missing from one participant (pwMS n = 22).

P-values correspond to comparisons with T-Tests or Mann-Whitney U Tests of direct scores between pwMS and HC.

* p-value ≤ 0.001

Table 2

Clinical and physiological (ERPs) features of pwMS.

	PwMS (n = 23)
EDSS	mdn 2 (IQR 2) [0–5.5]
Disease duration (years)	8.34 ± 6.41 [1.25–27.08]
Number of relapses	5.70 ± 3.88 [1–15]
Time from last relapse (years)	2.65 ± 2.04 [0.6–8.24]
CzP3—Amplitude	3.29 ± 2.11 a
CzP3—Latency	423.59 ± 57.11 a
PzP3—Amplitude	2.86 ± 1.59 a
PzP3—Latency	413.55 ± 105.88 a
P07N1 –Amplitude	-2.86 ± 1.95 a
P07N1- Latency	170.68 ± 38.56 a
P08N1 –Amplitude	-2.97 ± 2.13 a
P08N1 –Latency	176.77 ± 37.62 a
P07P1 –Amplitude	2.57 ± 1.46 a
P07P1- Latency	96.86 ± 15.17 a
P08P1 –Amplitude	3.03 ± 1.77 a
P08P1 –Latency	95.5 ± 15.7 a

Data are displayed as mean ± SD [range], median (interquartile range) [range], or as otherwise indicated. Abbreviations: pwMS, people with multiple sclerosis; HC, healthy controls; EDSS, Expanded Disability Status Scale.

ERPs data is missing from one participant (pwMS n = 22).

24 healthy volunteers (16 women, 8 men) with a mean ± SD age of 41.39 ± 11.38 years served as HC group. There were no significant differences in age, gender or educational level between pwMS and HC (p> 0.05) as shown in Table 1.

In terms of neuropsychological performance, pwMS performed significantly worse than HC in the SDMT [pwMS: 44 ± 14.3; HC: 57.9 ± 13 (p< 0.01)]. In contrast, there were no differences between groups in the FDT indexes of inhibition and flexibility, neither on the mean time under each condition of this test after correction for overall speed per participant [30]. No significant differences were found either in performance on the TAVEC (p> 0.05) (see Table 1).

Concerning the clinical tests, pwMS scored significantly higher on depression (BDI-II), fatigue (D-FIS) and lower on quality of life under all subscales of the MSQOL-54 (in all cases p< 0.01) (see Table 1).

Comparison between direct DT scores

In contrast to our hypotheses, no interaction effects were found in motor performance relative to Condition (ST, DT-DP, DT-CP) and Group (pwMS and HC) (F2,90 = 1.20; p = 0.305, η2 = 0.03). Main effects were found for Condition (F2,90 = 76.07; p< 0.001, η2 = 0.63) and Group (F1,45 = 35.39; p< 0.001, η2 = 0.44), with Bonferroni’s post-hoc test indicating that pwMS walked significantly slower than HC in ST (p< 0.001, d = 1.59) and both DT conditions (DT-DP: p< 0.001, d = 1.5; DT-CP: p< 0.001, d = 1.58). Similarly, both groups walked significantly faster in ST in comparison with DT-DP (pwMS: p = 0.028, d = 0.46; HC: p = 0.007, d = 0.58) and DT-CP conditions (pwMS: p< 0.001, d = 1.19; HC: p< 0.001, d = 1.77), and in DT-DP relative to DT-CP (pwMS: p = 0.0005, d = 0.68; HC: p< 0.001, d = 1.09) (see Fig 1 and Table 3).

Fig 1

Cognitive-motor interference over motor performance.

Distance (m) walked (mean ± standard deviation) during single task (ST), dual task with double priority (DT-DP) and dual task with cognitive priority (DT-CP) by people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) and healthy controls (HC). Significant contrasts are indicated by the black lines over the graph. * p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, denoting significant intragroup contrasts -ST vs DT-DP, ST vs DT-CP and DT-DP vs DT-CP- in pwMS and HC, respectively.† p< 0.05, †† p< 0.01, denoting significant between-group contrasts -pwMS vs HC-.

Table 3

Intragroup and between-group comparisons of direct scores of motor performance during DT and ST in pwMS and HC (mean ± SD).

	PwMS (n = 23)	HC (n = 24)	Condition	Group	Condition * Group
ST distance (m)	85.73 ± 19.3	114.45 ± 16.77	F = 76.1 p<0.0001ª,b,c η2 = 0.63	F = 35.4 p<0.0001d,e,f η2 = 0.44	F = 1.2 p = 0.31 η2 = 0.03
DT-DP distance (m)	76.79 ± 19.58	104.57 ± 17.38
DT-CP distance (m)	64.66 ± 15.81	87.73 ± 13.24

Abbreviations: pwMS, people with multiple sclerosis; HC, healthy controls; ST, single task; DT-DP, dual task with double priority; DT-CP, dual task with cognitive priority.

ª Post-hoc significant differences between ST and DT-DP in both groups -pwMS and HC- (p<0.05).

b Post-hoc significant differences between ST and DT-CP in both groups -pwMS and HC- (p<0.05).

c Post-hoc significant differences between DT-DP and DT-CP in both groups -pwMS and HC- (p<0.05).

d Post-hoc significant differences in ST between pwMS and HC (p<0.01).

e Post-hoc significant differences in DT-DP between pwMS and HC (p<0.01).

f Post-hoc significant differences in DT-CP between pwMS and HC (p<0.01).

After Bonferroni’s correction for multiple testing (corrected p< 0.05/3 = 0.0167), the number of correct words was significantly lower in both DT conditions in pwMS vs HC (DT-DP: p = 0.0058, d = 0.85; DT-CP: p = 0.0062) and, although marginally, also in ST (p = 0.0164, d = 0.73). The group of pwMS produced significantly (corrected p< 0.05/3 = 0.0167) more words in ST than in both DT conditions (DT-DP: p = 0.0085; DT-CP: p = 0.009), with no significant differences between DT-DP and DT-CP (p = 0.821). In contrast, no significant differences were found in the number of correct words produced by HC in ST versus both DT conditions (p> 0.05 in all cases) (see Fig 2 and Table 4).

Fig 2

Cognitive-motor interference over cognitive performance.

Number of correct words uttered (mean ± standard deviation) during single task (ST), dual task with double priority (DT-DP) and dual task with cognitive priority (DT-CP) by people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) and healthy controls (HC). Significant contrasts are indicated by the black lines over the graph.* Denotes significant intragroup contrasts -ST vs DT-DP, ST vs DT-CP and DT-DP vs DT-CP- in pwMS and HC, respectively. † Denotes significant between-group contrasts -pwMS vs HC-.

Table 4

Intragroup and between-group comparisons of direct scores of cognitive performance during DT and ST in pwMS and HC (mean ± SD).

	ST	DT-DP	DT-CP	ST vs DT-DP	ST vs DT-CP	DT-DP vs DT-CP
PwMS (n = 23)	14.22 ± 4.5	11.61 ± 4.35	11.87 ± 3.89	Z = 2.63 p = 0.0085*	Z = 2.61 p = 0.0090*	Z = 0.23 p = 0.8213
HC (n = 24)	17.17 ± 3.57	15.75 ± 5.37	16 ± 4.24	Z = 1.67 p = 0.0944	Z = 1.89 p = 0.0582	Z = 0.08 p = 0.9353
Between-group	t = -2.49 p = 0.0164* Cohen’s d = 0.73	t = -2.9 p = 0.0058* Cohen’s d = 0.85	U = 147 p = 0.0062*

Abbreviations: pwMS, people with multiple sclerosis; HC, healthy controls; ST, single task; DT-DP, dual task with double priority; DT-CP, dual task with cognitive priority.

* Denotes significant p-values after Bonferroni’s correction for multiple testing.

Comparison between DTC scores

Single sample t-tests with Bonferroni’s correction (corrected p< 0.05/4 = 0.0125) revealed that the motor DTC was significantly different from zero for pwMS and HC in both conditions DT-DP and DT-CP respective to ST (p< 0.001). However, the cognitive DTC was significantly different from a zero constant only for the DT-DP condition in pwMS (DT-DP: p = 0.0069; DT-CP: p = 0.0128), but not for HC (DT-DP: p = 0.21; DT-CP: p = 0.19) (see Table 5).

Table 5

Comparisons of DTC scores between pwMS and HC (mean ± SD) and contrasts against reference constant (zero value).

	PwMS (n = 23)	HC (n = 24)	Between-groups	Single-sample t-test
Motor DTC DT-DP	10.61 ± 9.58	8.48 ± 8.77	U = 250; p = 0.59	PwMS: t = 5.31; p< 0.0001*HC: t = 4.74; p = 0.0001*
Motor DTC DT-CP	23.37 ± 14.5	22.71 ± 10.5	U = 537; p = 0.76	PwMS: t = 7.73; p< 0.0001*HC: t = 10.59; p< 0.0001*
Cognitive DTC DT-DP	16.78 ± 26.98	7.42 ± 28.47	t = 1.16; p = 0.25Cohen’s d = 0.34	PwMS: t = 2.98; p = 0.0069*HC: t = 1.28; p = 0.21
Cognitive DTC DT-CP	14.26 ± 25.23	5.75 ± 20.82	U = 216.5; p = 0.21	PwMS: t = 2.71; p = 0.0128HC: t = 1.35; p = 0.1894

Abbreviations: pwMS, people with multiple sclerosis; HC, healthy controls; ST, single task; DTC DT-DP, dual-task cost in the dual task with double priority; DTC DT-CP, dual-task cost in the dual task with cognitive priority.

* Denotes significant p-values after Bonferroni’s correction for multiple testing.

No significant differences were found between pwMS and HC in motor nor cognitive DTC in any of the DT conditions (DT-DP or DT-CP) (p> 0.05 in all cases) (see Table 5).

Matched pairs tests (corrected p< 0.05/2 = 0.025) showed significant differences in motor DTC of DT-DP vs DT-CP in both groups (pwMS: p< 0.0001 and HC: p = 0.0001). In contrast, no differences were found in cognitive DTC of DT-DP vs DT-CP in any of the groups (pwMS: p< 0.58 and HC: p = 0.85).

Relationship between CMI measures & neuropsychology

Direct DT scores

The Spearman correlation analysis yielded significant positive correlations between SDMT and all direct DT scores in pwMS (p≤ 0.01) except for the distance walked in DT-CP (p> 0.05). In contrast, in HC, the SDMT correlated with correct words in DT-DP (rho = 0.61; p = 0.001) and DT-CP (rho = 0.53; p = 0.008) and with the distance walked in DT-CP (rho = 0.51; p = 0.011). Only in pwMS, a significant negative correlation was observed between FDT-Flexibility and distance in ST (rho = -0.56; p = 0.005) and DT-DP (rho = -0.5; p = 0.015), correct words in DT-DP (rho = -0.43; p = 0.041) and DT-CP (rho = -0.56; p = 0.006). The lower the score in FDT-Flexibility indicates higher cognitive flexibility; hence, the more flexibility (lower score), the better motor and cognitive performance in DT (more walked distance and more correct words uttered) in pwMS. No significant correlations were found between FDT-Flexibility and direct DT scores in HC, nor between FDT-inhibition and any DT parameters in any group (p> 0.05 in all cases). In addition, there was a significant positive correlation between the TAVEC-Immediate recall and all direct DT scores in pwMS (p< 0.05) except for the distance walked in DT-CP (p> 0.05), whereas the Long-delay free recall only correlated with the correct words in the three conditions (ST, DT-DP, DT-CP) (p< 0.05). In the HC group, only the correct words uttered in ST and DT-CP significantly correlated with TAVEC-Immediate recall, Short-delay free recall and Long-delay free recall (p< 0.05).

DTC scores

Significant correlations were found only in HC between SDMT and cognitive DTC in DT-DP (rho = -0.44, p = 0.031) and between FDT-Inhibition with the cognitive DTC in DT-CP (rho = 0.45; p = 0.028). TAVEC- Long-delay free recall showed a significant negative correlation with the cognitive DTC in DT-CP in both groups (pwMS: rho = -0.48, p = 0.022; HC: rho = 0.74, p< 0.001) (see S1 Table).

Relationship between CMI measures & symptomatic scales

Concerning the symptomatic assessment, significant negative correlations were revealed in HC between BDI-II and the distance walked in all conditions (ST: rho = -0.41, p = 0.047; DT-DP: rho = -0.52, p = 0.009; DT-CP: rho = -0.48, p = 0.016), whereas no significant correlations were found between this test and DT parameters in pwMS (p> 0.05). On the other hand, significant negative correlations between D-FIS and the distance walked in ST (rho = -0.54; p = 0.01) and DT-DP (rho = -0.52; p = 0.013) were observed in pwMS, but not in HC (p> 0.05). Additionally, significant positive correlations were found between MSQOL-global quality of life and distance walked in all conditions in pwMS (ST: rho = 0.53, p = 0.009; DT-DP: rho = 0.5, p = 0.016; DT-CP: rho = 0.43, p = 0.04), but in HC it only correlated with the distance walked in DT-DP (rho = 0.45; p = 0.028).

Concerning DTC scores, only a significant positive correlation was found between the motor DTC in DT-DP and D-FIS in HC (rho = 0.45; p = 0.026) (see S1 Table).

Relationship between CMI measures with physiological & clinical variables in pwMS

Relative to the ERPs (note that data is missing from one participant (n = 22), P3 amplitude in Cz and Pz significantly correlated with distance in ST (CzP3: rho = 0.49, p = 0.02; PzP3: rho = 0.5, p = 0.018) and with distance in DT-DP (CzP3: rho = 0.45, p = 0.037; PzP3: rho = 0.47, p = 0.028). Latency of P3 in Cz correlated with correct words in DT-CP (rho = 0.43, p = 0.046).

EDSS significantly correlated with distance in ST (rho = -0.66; p = 0.001) and DT-DP (rho = -0.71; p< 0.001).

The P3 amplitude in Cz and Pz significantly correlated with the cognitive DTCs in DT-DP (CzP3: rho = -0.43, p = 0.049; PzP3: rho = -0.43, p = 0.044) and in DT-CP (CzP3: rho = -0.49, p = 0.02; PzP3: rho = -0.47, p = 0.028).

No significant correlations were found between the rest of the clinical variables (disease duration, number of relapses, time from last relapse) and any parameters of the DT (direct or DTC) (p> 0.05) (see S2 Table).

Discussion

Our findings confirmed that there is CMI in terms of direct DT scores and DTC over motor performance -i.e. distance walked- in pwMS, and so there is in HC. In contrast, in pwMS there is statistically significant CMI over cognitive performance as well, which is not present in HC. Particularly, pwMS produce less words in DT (DT-DP and DT-CP) than in ST and their cognitive DTC of DT-DP is significantly greater than zero. The instructions of priority had an effect over motor and cognitive performance in this sample.

It should be noted that the sample of present study comprised patients with relapsing-remitting clinical course of MS, in a relatively initial stage of the disease (8.34 ± 6.41 years from diagnosis), free from severe depression, with mild disability [EDSS: median 2 (IQR: 2)] and able to ambulate without assistance.

The presence of CMI over motor parameters in pwMS and HC, together with the fact the motor DTC is comparable between groups is in agreement with current evidence [9,10]. Nonetheless, also in this study, pwMS already had worse motor performance than HC in ST, thus a similar DTC might represent a greater functional impact on the daily life of pwMS.

Despite being overlooked in many cases, the CMI over the cognitive performance in pwMS has been evidenced in other studies as well. As in the present study, pwMS showed significantly reduced performance in DT vs ST conditions -unlike HC- [31,32], and a cognitive DTC significantly greater than zero [33]. However, in our study, no differences were found between cognitive DTC scores of pwMS and HC, in contrast with other studies that identified significant greater cognitive DTC in pwMS than in HC, with no change or even an improvement on a Serial 7s’ Subtractions task while walking [32,34]. Of note is that the study by Saleh et al. (2018) comprised a similar pwMS sample, as all patients had relapsing-remitting course of the disease and similar clinical features. Similarly, in another study, it was found that pwMS performing a digit span task while walking had significant cognitive DTC compared to HC when the number of digits was fixed, but not when it was titrated to each individual’s capacity in ST [35]. Thus, it all suggests that CMI over cognitive performance in pwMS is revealed across studies by means of different tasks and measures. The differences in CMI between studies are influenced by the cognitive load coming from the type and complexity of the cognitive tasks concurrent to walking. Moreover, we hypothesize that this is also reason for the differences found between the two DT with different instructions, i.e. DT-DP and DT-CP, as they induce different cognitive loads.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare different sets of instructions regarding prioritization of tasks during DT in pwMS. Specifically, in the DT-DP, participants were instructed to perform both tasks at best capacity (walk as fast as possible while reciting as many words as possible), whereas in the DT-CP they were only asked to perform the cognitive task at best capacity while walking at preferred speed. Interestingly, there was a differential pattern of performance between pwMS and HC: while both groups showed significantly reduced motor performance between all conditions according to this gradient (ST > DT-DP > DT-CP), only in pwMS the cognitive performance was significantly reduced from ST to DT-DP and DT-CP respectively, with no significant difference between DT-DP and DT-CP. These results in pwMS are consistent with those obtained in a population of older adults without dementia, who performed the DT consisting on the Alternate Alphabet task while walking under the same conditions of priority -cognitive performance in ST was not assessed- [16]. Additionally, we found that in pwMS and HC, the motor DTC of DT-DP and DT-CP was significant, but only the cognitive DTC of DT-DP was significant in pwMS.

These results suggest that HC successfully prioritized the cognitive task by slowing down in both DT (DT-DP and DT-CP); while pwMS, despite slowing down the same extent as HC, were not able to divert their attention from walking and successfully perform the cognitive task, thus leading to CMI and revealing that their cognitive resources were further exceeded by the DT. In line with this, the CMI over cognitive performance in pwMS was more accentuated in the DT-DP, which is the most cognitively-demanding condition.

Considering this evidence, we would recommend reporting and giving standardized instructions for the DT. Moreover, DT measures are more reliable when participants are given specific instructions of what to prioritize [36]. Specifically, the use of the double-priority instructions would be advised, which might amplify the CMI over motor and cognitive parameters and, therefore, make the DT more sensitive. In support of this, evidence from ST walking have shown that preferred speed is more natural and intuitive [37], but fast walking speed has better metrological properties [38] and has been proposed as more beneficial for the assessment of pwMS because it would rather unveil gait deficits in patients with low EDSS [39].

The neuropsychological, symptomatic scores and clinical features of MS were associated with direct DT and ST measures in a predictable manner, e.g. EDSS and distance in ST and DT-DP. Specifically, it is interesting that cognitive processing speed (SDMT) correlated with all DT scores, except for the distance in DT-CP, in pwMS, suggesting that cognitive processing speed is related to both motor and cognitive processes in ST and DT. However, we replicate the lack of association between SDMT and motor DTC as in previous research [40-42], although it showed a significant association with cognitive DTC in DT-DP in HC. Moreover, greater cognitive flexibility (FDT-Flexibility) was associated exclusively in pwMS with better cognitive performance in both DT-DP and DT-CP -not ST-, and with better motor performance in ST and DT-DP. Therefore, we speculate that the flexibility in allocating cognitive resources to each task might be an important compensatory cognitive process in pwMS for successful performance in DT. Remarkably, no associations were found between clinical variables of MS such as disease duration like in previous research [43], number of relapses, time from last relapse and any direct or DTC score, suggesting that the symptoms and functional status of the individual are rather related to CMI, independently of these aspects of the disease.

Overall, cognitive DTC scores were associated with various measures of cognition such as processing speed (SDMT) and inhibitory control (FDT- inhibition) in HC, and long-term memory (TAVEC- Long-delay free recall) in pwMS and HC. In addition, cognitive DTC scores in pwMS were associated with physiological measures (ERPs: P3 amplitude in Pz and Cz electrodes). The only significant correlation of motor DTC was with fatigue (D-FIS) in HC during the DT-DP. It should be remarked, because previous studies have not considered the effect over the cognitive task, though it seems to be predominantly associated with the cognitive status of the participants and the motor DTC is not so related to other characteristics of the sample. These results may suggest CMI over cognitive performance as a marker of cognitive status.

In agreement with our results, research found significant associations between CMI and inhibitory measures in HC but not in pwMS, in which it was rather associated with self-perceived difficulty in keeping track of two things at a time [40]. Regarding the physiological results, the P3 amplitude is related with the neural sources required when an attentional task is processed [44], so it can be inferred that the more neural resources are recruited during the attentional task, the better the DT performance.

It is worth noting that different associations have been found with direct DT scores and DTC, which might indicate that they measure different constructs.

The present study is not without limitations. For instance, the sample size is relatively small, and the recruitment was by convenience, which might be a source of bias. Moreover, the mean BDI-II score of pwMS was significantly higher than that of HC, indicative of mild symptomatology of depression at the group level in pwMS. This should be taken into account when considering the results. In addition, the order of the conditions in DT were not counterbalanced. The fact that DT-DP was performed before DT-CP was an informed decision based on previous research [16], but still the ST was always performed prior to DT, so fatigue might have influenced the DT results. Nevertheless, all participants were allowed to rest and sit after each trial or condition. To our knowledge, no previous study has explored the relationship between ERPs and CMI in pwMS. However, the EEG recordings were limited to the pwMS group. Considering that the results were obtained from pwMS with relapsing-remitting course and mild disability, they should not be generalizable to the entire population of pwMS.

Future studies could include other measures of gait performance which might have better captured the effect of CMI, as gait speed or distance have been shown to be sensitive but not specific in pwMS since it also decrements in HC [10].

Conclusions

The current study examined CMI over cognitive and motor parameters and provided novel data concerning the effect of different instructions of DT prioritization and about its correlates in pwMS and HC. Specifically, it was found that unlike HC, the cognitive performance of pwMS was worse under DT conditions than ST and had a significant cognitive DTC during the DT-DP condition. Furthermore, cognitive DTC scores were associated with neuropsychological and physiological (P3) measures in pwMS. It suggests that CMI over cognitive performance might be a potential early marker of cognitive or functional decline in pwMS, which may be enhanced by the instruction to prioritize both tasks in the DT. Nevertheless, these results should be taken with caution and further research is needed in order to ascertain this question.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Correlations between CMI parameters and symptomatic features of pwMS and HC.

Abbreviations: pwMS, people with multiple sclerosis; HC, healthy controls; ST, single task; DT-DP, dual task with double priority; DT-CP, dual task with cognitive priority: DTC, dual-task cost; SDMT, Symbol Digit Modalities Test; FDT, Five Digit Test; TAVEC, Test de Aprendizaje Verbal España Complutense; BDI-II, Beck Depression Inventory II; D-FIS, Daily Fatigue Impact Scale; MSQOL, Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54. Note: Values are Spearman’s Rho. D-FIS score is missing from one participant (pwMS n = 22). * p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.001.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Correlations between CMI parameters and clinical and physiological features of pwMS.

Abbreviations: pwMS, people with multiple sclerosis; HC, healthy controls; ST, single task; DT-DP, dual task with double priority; DT-CP, dual task with cognitive priority: DTC, dual-task cost. Note: Values are Spearman’s Rho. ERPs data is missing from one participant (pwMS n = 22). * p-value < 0.05; ** p-value < 0.001.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

14 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-27815

The effect of prioritization over cognitive-motor interference in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and healthy controls

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs Postigo-Alonso,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 29 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abiodun E. Akinwuntan, PhD, MPH, MBA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Reviewers' comments:

Summary: In this manuscript, researchers investigated the effect of prioritization (single task vs. cognitive prioritization vs. double prioritization) on cognitive and motor outcomes in people with MS compared to the healthy controls. Overall, people with MS had greater cognitive-motor interference compared to healthy controls. In addition, people with MS demonstrated decreased gait speed from a single task to dual-task with double prioritization to dual-task with cognitive prioritization compared to the healthy controls. This study suggests that double prioritization instructions during dual-tasking may improve the cognitive and motor outcomes in people with MS.

In the abstract and introduction, there was no information regarding the rationale of using physiological measure (EEG) to assess brain activity during the auditory oddball test. Please include the rationale and add this to the aims of the study.

Why were the EEG outcomes were not compared with those of healthy controls? In addition, why was the EEG not used during the real-time dual-task conditions? Why was the auditory oddball task selected to measure event-related potentials? Did all participants with people with MS undergo to the EEG assessment? Please clear all these points.

In addition, the physiological assessment was done at the end of the assessment session. Wouldn’t the cognitive and physical fatigue level of the people with MS might affect the event-related potentials? Were there any a priori thoughts to prevent the fatigability of the MS subjects during the EEG assessment?

In the discussion section (page 17, line 382-383), it was stated to the participants to walk as fast as possible while reciting as many words as possible. However, these instructions were not stated in the methods section. If the participants were asked to walk as fast as possible how did the safety was assured? Please add the instructions for walking and the safety precautions in the methods section.

In Table 1, please add the units of the outcomes for the cognitive tests.

In Table 1, it has been shown that there was a significant difference in the BDI-II scores between people with MS and healthy controls. It seems people with MS were in a mild depression. This finding should be considered while interpreting the results. Please incorporate the possibility of the effect of depression on the results in the discussion section.

Please remove the last two sentences of the conclusion which is on page 20 lines 462-463 and incorporate it in the limitations paragraph which is under the discussion section.

Please include a sentence to describe the clinical importance of this study. Should the clinicians instruct double prioritization during activities of living which have a dual-task component in people with MS?

When revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

27 Nov 2019

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for the suggestions and recommendations. We really think the comments helped us to improve the paper and make it clearer for readers of the journal.

Please, note that we will hereinafter refer to pages and lines of the document “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”, where modifications have been applied.

Comments from Reviewers:

In the abstract and introduction, there was no information regarding the rationale of using physiological measure (EEG) to assess brain activity during the auditory oddball test. Please include the rationale and add this to the aims of the study.

We wish to thank the reviewer for the suggestion. The rationale for using ERPs with oddball task was to explore if some psychophysiological variables (latency and amplitude of P3, P1 and N1 components) obtained during a cognitive task is related with the performance of a cognitive-motor dual task. In the manuscript, some phrases have been added including the physiological measures:

In the Abstract (page 2, lines 37-38):

CMI measures correlated with “neuropsychological, symptomatic, physiological (cognitive event-related potentials) and clinical variables”.

In the Introduction (page 4, lines 88-89):

3) examine whether CMI over cognitive and motor parameters is associated with “neuropsychological, symptomatic, physiological (cognitive event-related potentials) and clinical variables”, as one of the interests is to know whether CMI could be used as marker of functional impairment in pwMS.”

Please, note that we have further the specification of “physiological” to the heading in the Results section (page 16, line 341):

“Relationship between CMI measures, with physiological & clinical variables in pwMS”

Why were the EEG outcomes were not compared with those of healthy controls? In addition, why was the EEG not used during the real-time dual-task conditions? Why was the auditory oddball task selected to measure event-related potentials? Did all participants with people with MS undergo to the EEG assessment? Please clear all these points.

Thank very much for raising these points. The EEG outcomes of pwMS were not compared with that of healthy controls since it did not respond to the research objectives of the study. As can be seen in the manuscript, objective 3 of states: “examine whether CMI over cognitive and motor parameters is associated with neuropsychological, symptomatic, physiological (cognitive event-related potentials) and clinical variables, as one of the interests is to know whether CMI could be used as marker of functional impairment in pwMS.” The physiological evaluation was performed in order to identify possible physiological variables associated with dual-task performance in pwMS.

The oddball paradigm was used during the EEG recording because it is a cognitive paradigm that involves higher-order associative areas of the central nervous system. Furthermore, the oddball paradigm has strong scientific support and the ERP components P1, N1, and P3 evoked during an oddball task are easily and reliably detected. Given that the purpose is to transfer the basic knowledge to the clinic, it is desirable that the simple and widely known paradigms are used for the detection of the ERP components in clinical populations.

The EEG was not used during real-time dual-task conditions since as mentioned in text (page 8, lines 172-173) the equipment used was the Nicolet™ Viking Quest system (Natus Medical Incorporated, San Carlos, CA, USA), which is not portable.

Furthermore, the objective was to study the associated cognitive-related variables with DT, rather than the physiological measures underlying DT.

Not all the participants with MS underwent the EEG assessment. As it is noted in the footnotes of table 2 (page 11, line 226) and S2 (page 28, line 620): “ERPs data is missing from one participant (pwMS n=22).”

A clarifying note is also included in the Results section (page 16, line 343):

Direct DT scores. Relative to the ERPs “(note that data is missing from one participant (n=22)”

In addition, the physiological assessment was done at the end of the assessment session. Wouldn’t the cognitive and physical fatigue level of the people with MS might affect the event-related potentials? Were there any a priori thoughts to prevent the fatigability of the MS subjects during the EEG assessment?

Thank you for these questions. We agree that cognitive and physical fatigue might have influenced the EEG results. In order to minimize this effect, participants could rest between tasks and between trials during the EEG assessment and, specially, before the EEG assessment they were advised to do so. This has been included in the manuscript as shown below.

We decided to perform it in the last place since it was not the main purpose of the study considering the scare evidence of its relation to dual-task parameters in the literature. So, it was mainly exploratory. Although, the main reason was that the preparation of the subject and the performance of the oddball task is time-consuming and may lead to fatigue, which (in case of doing it in the first place) might as well have influenced performance on the rest of the assessment including the dual task performance.

A comment was added related to resting in the Experimental procedure subsection of the Method (page 5, lines 119-120) clarifying that:

All participants completed demographic questionnaires, DT assessments, neuropsychological tests and symptomatic scales. Additionally, pwMS underwent an electroencephalography (EEG) recording, which was always performed in the last place. “The participants could rest between tasks in the DT, between different tests, and between trials in the EEG recording.”

In the discussion section (page 17, line 382-383), it was stated to the participants to walk as fast as possible while reciting as many words as possible. However, these instructions were not stated in the methods section. If the participants were asked to walk as fast as possible how did the safety was assured? Please add the instructions for walking and the safety precautions in the methods section.

Thank you very much for these suggestions. The instructions are summarized in the Methods (page 6, lines 127-132). We have added a clarification of the instructions in parentheses.

The DT assessment consisted on the performance of both cognitive (i.e. Verbal Fluency Test) and motor (i.e. walking) tasks under three conditions: independently at best capacity or single task (ST) (“say as many words as possible” or “walk as fast as possible”), both tasks simultaneously at best capacity or DT with double prioritization (DT-DP) (“walk as fast possible while reciting as many words as possible”), and performing only the cognitive task at best capacity while walking at preferred speed or DT with cognitive prioritization (DT-CP) (“say as many words as possible while walking at your preferred speed. The most important is to say as many words as possible”). The tasks were performed for 60 s under every condition and always in the same order (ST cognitive, ST motor, DT-DP, DT-CP).

During the walking tasks, the experimenters who walked nearby the side and behind the participant assured safety.

A sentence about this was included in the Methods section (page 6, line 141):

One experimenter walked nearby the side of the participant while writing down the words generated. At the same time, a second experimenter walked 1 m after the participant and videotaped the performance from the back. Both instruments were used to obtain the number of correct words uttered by the participant. “These experimenters assured safety of the participant while walking”.

In Table 1, please add the units of the outcomes for the cognitive tests.

We would like to thank the reviewer for noticing it. The units have been added in Table 1. Please, note that we have also included a clarification for the units of one test in the footnotes of table 1 (page 10, line 216).

In Table 1, it has been shown that there was a significant difference in the BDI-II scores between people with MS and healthy controls. It seems people with MS were in a mild depression. This finding should be considered while interpreting the results. Please incorporate the possibility of the effect of depression on the results in the discussion section.

We wish to thank the reviewer for this interesting commentary. We agree that this a very important point, so the next phrases were added to the Discussion (page 20, lines 449-452):

“Moreover, the mean BDI-II score of pwMS was significantly higher than that of HC, indicative of mild symptomatology of depression at the group level in pwMS. This should be taken into account when considering the results.”

Please remove the last two sentences of the conclusion which is on page 20 lines 462-463 and incorporate it in the limitations paragraph which is under the discussion section.

Thank you very much for the recommendation. The sentence has been moved to page 20, lines 457-459.

Please include a sentence to describe the clinical importance of this study. Should the clinicians instruct double prioritization during activities of living which have a dual-task component in people with MS?

We appreciate this suggestion. The following sentence was added in the Introduction (page 4, lines 86-87):

The present study aimed to: 1) determine the extent to which DT performance affects motor and cognitive parameters in pwMS compared to HC, 2) explore the effect of different instructions of prioritization in the DT “in order to guide clinical decision-making regarding the selection of the DT procedure”.

The clinical recommendations and its importance were also mentioned in:

Discussion (page 18, lines 408-412):

Considering this evidence, we would recommend reporting and giving standardized instructions for the DT. Moreover, DT measures are more reliable when participants are given specific instructions of what to prioritize [36]. Specifically, the use of the double-priority instructions would be advised, which might amplify the CMI over motor and cognitive parameters and, therefore, make the DT more sensitive.

Conclusions (page 21, lines 470-472):

It suggests that CMI over cognitive performance might be a potential early marker of cognitive or functional decline in pwMS, which may be enhanced by the instruction to prioritize both tasks in the DT.

We have included an additional correction in the way we designated an equation in the Introduction (page 7, lines 149-150). Previously, it was signaled as:

“Dual-task cost (DTC) scores were also calculated for the motor and cognitive measures in the DT assessment according to the widely used equation [1] [28]:

[1] DTC=(single task-dual task)/(single task) x 100”

However, with this referencing system, the signal “[1]” might be confused with reference number 1, whereas it is only to designate the equation. Therefore, we propose to directly eliminate the “[1]”. It would finally appear like this:

“Dual-task cost (DTC) scores were also calculated for the motor and cognitive measures in the DT assessment according to the widely used equation [28]:

DTC=(single task-dual task)/(single task) x 100”

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Dec 2019

The effect of prioritization over cognitive-motor interference in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and healthy controls

PONE-D-19-27815R1

Dear Dr. Postigo-Alonso,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Since no modifications are required at this time, you will receive a formal acceptance letter within one week and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Abiodun E. Akinwuntan, PhD, MPH, MBA

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

11 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-27815R1

The effect of prioritization over cognitive-motor interference in people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and healthy controls

Dear Dr. Postigo-Alonso:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Abiodun E. Akinwuntan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE