Can the effects of cognitive and motor inhibition in balance-related tasks be predicted in young and older persons?

Can the effects of cognitive and motor inhibition in balance-related tasks be predicted in young and older persons? | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Can the effects of cognitive and motor inhibition in balance-related tasks be predicted in young and older persons? Eunyoung Kwag, Wiebren Zijlstra This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6225106/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 17 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates age-related differences in relations between inhibitory control in balance-related tasks (BRTs) and executive and physical functions. Correlations between effects of cognitive and motor inhibition in two BRTs and performance on general tests assessing inhibition and other executive functions, as well as associations between performance of the BRTs were explored in 26 young and 46 older adults (YA: 26±4, OA: 70±4 years). Multiple linear regression evaluated BRT-performance using predictors from general tests of executive and physical functions. Significant age-related differences were observed in most general tests. In YA, cognitive inhibition in the BRT correlated with reaction time and failure rate in Go/no-go and Stop signal tests, while motor inhibition correlated with stop signal reaction time in Stop signal test. These patterns were not observed in OA. In YA and OA, correlations between the BRTs were minor, and, rather than physical functions, executive functions partially predicted BRT-performance. The differential associations of cognitive and motor inhibition in the BRTs with general inhibition tests and the lack of correlations between the BRTs provide evidence that the BRTs comprise different aspects of inhibitory control. The absence of similar results in OA may reflect compensatory processes and age-related changes in cognitive functions. Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Cognitive ageing Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Cognitive neuroscience/Cognitive control Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Cognitive neuroscience/Problem solving cognitive control balance inhibition cognitive-motor interaction compensatory processes Figures Figure 1 Introduction Age-related changes in functioning can limit activities of daily living and increase the risk of accidents among older adults (OA). Safe mobility in complex everyday life requires the integration of intact physical and cognitive functions. For example, navigating a crowded area safely and efficiently necessitates inhibiting irrelevant distractions while focusing on relevant information. When encountering a sudden obstacle, individuals must quickly stop ongoing or imminent steps to prevent potential accidents. These conditions, which require simultaneous coordination of cognitive and physical performance, may pose heightened risks for OA, particularly for those with cognitive and physical deficits [ 1 , 2 ]. The inhibitory deficit hypothesis posits that OA are prone to inefficient inhibitory processes, which affect selective attention and subsequently lead to decreased cognitive performance in various tasks [ 3 ]. However, age-related changes in inhibitory control vary depending on task-specific features and the type of inhibition [ 4 – 6 ], suggesting that inhibitory control does not represent a unitary structure. Evidence also indicates that poor inhibitory control is associated with decreased balance performance and/or increased fall risk in OA [ 7 , 8 ], which highlights the importance of understanding inhibition-related processes within the context of balance-related tasks (BRTs). However, the relations between inhibitory control and balance performance remain unclear as tasks used to assess inhibition have mostly involved button pressing activities performed while sitting (e.g., Go/no-go test, Stop signal test, and Flanker test). A scoping review exploring the performance of BRTs that incorporate inhibitory control found that the few available studies indicate that OA exhibit significant inhibition-induced responses, such as increased response times [ 9 ]. However, further investigation is needed due to the varied nature of such tasks, which include different types of BRTs, such as gait or step initiation, combined with the complexity of inhibition assessments (e.g., different test types and stimuli). Building on findings of the scoping review [ 9 ], two novel BRTs, simulating complex and unexpected situations requiring inhibitory control, were developed: a stepping task that incorporates cognitive inhibition and a gait initiation-stop task that incorporates motor inhibition [ 10 – 12 ]. Both BRTs require preparation of a step response, however, whereas the stepping task requires the selection and execution of a correct step in response to a visual stimulus, the gait-initiation stop task requires the successful inhibition of step execution in response to a stop signal. Both BRTs were used to examine effects of age and inhibition on the process of preparing an initial response (preparatory phase) and the execution (or inhibition) of a step response (behavioral phase). In both tasks, performance was assessed using a force plate (to analyze changes in center of pressure (CoP) preceding a step) and a marker-based motion capture system (to analyze the execution of a step). Both BRTs demonstrated significant age-related declines [ 10 – 12 ]. However, it remains unclear whether cognitive and motor inhibition integrated into BRTs associate with cognitive and motor inhibition measured by general inhibition tests, and how performance of the stepping and gait initiation-stop tasks is associated within young adults (YA) and OA. Therefore, this study aims to develop a better understanding of the underlying features of the two novel BRTs. First of all, we examine how inhibition effects on these BRTs relate to general tests of inhibition and other executive functions, in order to evaluate whether the BRTs indeed primarily relate to inhibitory control. Secondly, we investigate relations between the two BRTs in order to determine whether these represent the same or different outcomes. Lastly, we determine the extent to which cognitive and physical functions predict overall performance in the BRTs among YA and OA. We hypothesize that in YA as well as in OA the BRTs relate more to inhibitory control than other executive functions, and that the two BRTs represent different aspects of inhibitory control. Methods This study is part of the project “Investigation of the performance of balance tasks requiring inhibitory control in healthy young and healthy old persons”, which has been approved by the ethics committee of the German Sport University (Nr. 095/2021). All methods were performed in accordance with relevant regulations and guidelines. Participants Healthy young (aged 20–35 years) and older (aged 65–75 years) adults participated in the study (YA: n = 26, age 26 ± 4; OA: n = 46, age 70 ± 4) after providing written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Inclusion criteria comprised an intact ability to hear and see (with or without assistive devices) and an absence of health conditions that affect mobility and/or balance. Exclusion criteria comprised acute injuries, chronic diseases, sensory impairments, gait and/or balance deficiencies, and the inability to walk without assistive devices. Exclusion criteria were assessed through a questionnaire, which also included other background questions. Additionally, the Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment test was conducted for a cognitive screening; a cut-off score of < 23 was used [ 13 ] as exclusion criterion. Measurement process and experimental setup Measurements were scheduled over two days to avoid cognitive and/or physical fatigue effects. All general tests evaluating executive and physical functions were assessed in the laboratory on the first day of measurement, whereas the two novel BRTs were measured on the second day. The stepping and gait-initiation stop tasks that incorporate cognitive and motor inhibition, respectively, were conducted in randomized order. The initial posture for each task was to stand on a force plate while focusing on a stimulus presented at the centre of a TV screen (93 x 52 cm). Performance was measured using the force plate (Bertec Corporation, US) at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz and a marker-based 3D-Motion analysis system (Qualysis Motion Capture System, Goteborg, SE). Reflective markers were attached to anatomical points in order to measure positions of body segments with 8 infrared cameras (100 Hz). Visual stimuli of the tasks were developed using custom scripts of MATLAB based on Psychtoolbox-3 (MATLAB, R2022a, MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). Assessment of general tests and balance-related tasks integrating inhibition General tests Tests assessing executive functions were followed by tests assessing physical functions. Three core components of executive functions were measured [ 14 ]: (1) inhibitory control evaluated through web-based tests, including Go/no-go test and Stop-signal test. Performance of the Go/no-go test indicates cognitive inhibition, requiring attentional/interference control [ 15 – 17 ], while performance of the Stop-signal test indicates motor inhibition, requiring an action cancellation/suppression [ 18 ]; (2) cognitive flexibility (paper-and-pencil form): Trail making test and (3) working memory (tapping cubes): Corsi block test. Tests assessing physical functions included: (1) balance test: Berg balance scale [ 19 ], (2) mobility test: modified Timed-up & go and (3) balance confidence test: Activity-specific balance confidence scale. Detailed information regarding test procedures and variables is provided in Appendix 1. The web-based executive functions tests were developed using custom scripts on the PsyToolkit platform. Balance-related tasks that incorporate inhibition The stepping task that incorporates cognitive inhibition is designed based on combined principles from a Simon- and Flanker-task (i.e., a Simon-Flanker task by Kwag et al., 2024). The task consisted of 20 congruent and 20 incongruent stimulus-response trials, with five of each across four step directions (forward, backward, left, and right). A participant was required to respond quickly to an ‘arrows’ stimulus which followed a plus signal, by stepping onto an individually normalized target while shifting their weight, then returning to the starting position before the next trial triggered by the researcher (see Fig. 1 -a for details). A correct response for the Simon-Flanker task was to step into the direction indicated by the middle arrow while ignoring both the location and the direction of the surrounding arrows (see Fig. 1 -b for example of correct response of forward and right). The gait initiation-stop task that incorporates motor inhibition consisted of three blocks, with each block comprising 9 ‘Go’ and 3 ‘Stop’ trials in a randomized order. The participant was required to initiate gait promptly when the light turned to green (i.e., ‘Go’ trial) and completely block gait initiation, maintaining an upright standing position on the force plate, when the green signal changed from green to red (i.e., ‘Stop’ trial) in some trials (see Fig. 1 -c) (for detailed information, see Kwag, Komnik, et al., 2024). Data analysis General tests Before data analysis, the failure rate of the stop trials in the Stop-signal test was used as an exclusion criterion to ensure reliability of stop signal reaction time estimates. Participants with a probability of responding on stop trials below 0.25 or above 0.75 were excluded [ 20 ]. Balance-related tasks that incorporate inhibition Participants with missing data in any type of trial (congruent or incongruent) or step direction in the stepping task, due to instability before stimulus presentation or incorrect step responses, were excluded from further analysis. In the gait initiation-stop task, participants with missing data in ‘Stop’ trials, caused by excessively fast or delayed responses, were also excluded. Data analysis of the BRTs encompassed changes in ground reaction forces and the CoP position from the force plate, as well as step movement from the motion capture system. The ground reaction forces and the CoP signal were filtered using a second-order, recursive Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 5 Hz. Overall outcome of the stepping task was assessed by the duration in total step execution, calculated as the mean time between presentation of stimulus and touchdown across all congruent and incongruent trials. Effects of cognitive inhibition were analyzed based on changes in CoP onset and CoP duration, which occur prior to the behavioral phase, such as step execution (for detailed information see Data analysis by Kwag, Bachmann, et al., 2024). Effects of cognitive inhibition were calculated as the additional duration due to inhibition, expressed as the ratio of the difference between incongruent and congruent trial times to the congruent trial time. For the gait initiation-stop task, only trials of comparable difficulty, as determined by ROC-analysis [ 21 ], were included to examine overall outcome, success rate, and motor inhibition (for detailed information see Data analyses and Results by Kwag, Komnik, et al., 2024). Success was defined as no forward movement in either foot following the stop signal. Motor inhibition was analyzed by estimating integrals based on the amplitude and timing of maximum posterior CoP displacement. The relative motor inhibition during a ‘Stop’ trial was quantified as: StopGo integrals = 100 x (CoP integrals of a ‘Stop’ trial – mean CoP integrals of all ‘Go’ trials) / (mean CoP integrals of all ‘Go’ trials). Statistical analysis Using G*Power (version 3.1.9.7 [ 22 ]), an a priori power analysis and sample size estimation were performed based on step reaction times presented by Magnard et al. (2020). To detect group differences, a total sample size of 32 was calculated, based on an effect size of 1.34, with an alpha level of 0.05 and 95% power. For detecting within-group condition effects, the analysis suggested sample sizes of n = 24 for YA and n = 42 for OA, based on effect sizes of 0.58 and 0.45, respectively, with an alpha level of 0.05 and 80% power. Given these outcomes, the higher sample size suggestions were chosen to ensure robust detection of within-group condition effects. Assuming a 10% drop-out rate, a minimum of 26 YA and 46 OA were recruited. Data processing and statistical analysis were carried out using MATLAB software. After identifying multicollinearity using the variance inflation factor, predictors for each executive functions test were determined. The remaining variables were: (1) Reaction time & (2) Failure rate during No-go signal for Go/no-go test, (3) Stop signal reaction time & (4) Failure rate for Stop-signal test, response time for (5) Trail making test Part A and (6) Part B & (7) the difference (B – A), (8) Forward and (9) Backward product for Corsi block test, the Timed-up & go test at (10) fast & (11) normal walking speeds, (12) the Berg balance scale, and (13) the Activity-specific balance confidence scale. The Welch’s t-test is used to compare the means of two groups, and a two-tailed p -value is reported. After excluding outliers with a z-score greater than three from each group, Spearman correlations were conducted to examine the relations between the general tests and the BRTs, as well as among the BRTs. Subsequently, a multiple linear regression was performed using only predictors with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.3, employing a stepwise approach with forward selection and backward elimination at a p -value threshold of 0.1 to iteratively refine the model. This approach ensures compliance with model assumptions, such as linearity, and helps prevent overfitting. Magnitude of correlation coefficients was categorized as follows: very high (0.90 to 1.00), high (0.70 to 0.90), moderate (0.50 to 0.70), low (0.30 to 0.50) and negligible (0.00 to 0.30) [ 24 ]. For further analyses, only correlation coefficients exceeding 0.30 were considered ‘meaningful’. In the context of regression analysis, the coefficient of determination (R-squared), which ranges from 0 to 1, is considered meaningful when it exceed 0.15 [ 25 , 26 ]. Results After data processing, missing data resulted in the exclusion of eight YA (stepping task: n = 3; Stop-signal test: n = 5) and six OA (Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment test: n = 1; stepping task: n = 3; Stop-signal test: n = 2; gait initiation-stop task: n = 1). Finally, full data sets of 18 YA and 40 OA could be included in the analysis. General background data and physical activity-related characteristics are presented in Table 1 . Table 1 Characteristics of the participants Characteristic YA (n = 18) OA (n = 40) Mean SD Mean SD Age (years) 25 4 70 3 Gender (number of females (%)) 11 (61) 18 (45) Height (cm) 172.6 8.7 172.2 8.3 Mass (kg) 65.0 9.9 76.3 13.1 MoCA 28.3 1.0 27.2 1.5 Individuals who experienced a fall in the past 12 months (yes) 1 8 Fear of falling (yes) 1 7 Exercise (hours/week) 6.1 5.6 5.3 6.4 Home-based physical activity (hours/week) 6.2 3.7 9.5 6.2 MoCA , The Montreal Cognitive Assessment test; OA , older adults; SD , standard deviation; YA , young adults General tests of executive and physical functions OA required significantly more time to respond to signals and complete executive function tests than YA, while failure rate in the inhibition tests did not differ significantly between YA and OA, with a smaller standard deviation in OA (see Table 2 -a). The product score of the working memory test was greater in YA, with a higher standard deviation in YA. All physical functioning tests exhibited significantly better performance in YA, except for the Timed-up & go test at normal speed (see Table 2 -b). Balance-related tasks that incorporate inhibition Total step execution time of the stepping task incorporating cognitive inhibition was significantly longer in OA than in YA. In contrast, cognitive inhibition effects on CoP onset and CoP duration did not differ between age groups (see Table 2 -c). In the gait initiation-stop task incorporating motor inhibition, applying a cut-off value from the ROC-analysis led to additional missing data: YA (n = 4) and OA (n = 5). YA demonstrated both a significantly higher success rate and greater motor inhibition than OA (see Table 2 -d). Table 2 General tests assessing executive and physical functions Test Variable YA (n = 18) OA (n = 40) T-test Mean SD Mean SD df t p -value a GNG Reaction time (ms) 355.6 22.8 452.1 43.5 54.6 11.1 < .001 Failure (%) 5.3 6.2 6.0 4.7 26.3 0.5 .647 SST SSRT (ms) 240.0 39.3 274.8 47.5 39.3 2.9 .006 Failure (%) 38.0 9.2 33.7 5.6 22.8 -1.8 .080 TMT A (s) 16.2 3.7 27.4 5.9 49.9 8.7 < .001 B (s) 46.7 10.8 74.8 23.0 55.8 6.3 < .001 Difference (s) 30.5 10.2 47.4 20.3 55.1 4.2 < .001 CBT Forward product 53.0 20.8 38.9 9.9 20.5 -2.8 .012 Backward product 63.8 20.8 43.8 11.9 22.2 -3.8 .001 b BBT Total score 56.0 0.0 54.6 1.5 39 -6.0 < .001 TUG Normal (s) 25.5 2.6 27.1 4.0 48.1 1.8 .078 Fast (s) 18.3 1.4 20.8 2.2 49.2 5.4 < .001 ABC Total score (%) 96.6 3.1 93.7 5.8 54.1 -2.4 .018 c The stepping task CI CoP onset 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.08 45.7 -1.0 .310 CI CoP duration 0.20 0.15 0.23 0.13 28.5 0.8 .436 Total step execution (ms) 1139.91 96.30 1486.63 199.23 55.6 8.9 < .001 d The gait initiation-stop task MI StopGo integrals -48.43 18.71 -47.38 19.46 24.9 2.1 .046 Success (%) 63 0.38 26 0.36 22.6 -3.0 .006 Notes: a: tests assessing executive functions; b: tests assessing physical functions; c and d represent novel balance-related tasks integrating cognitive (c) and motor inhibition (d) ABC , the Activity-specific balance confidence scale; BBT , the Berg balance scale; CBT , the Corsi block test; CI , cognitive inhibition; CoP , Center of pressure; GNG , the Go/no-go test; MI , motor inhibition; OA , older adults; SD , standard deviation; SSRT , stop signal reaction time; SST , the Stop-signal test; TMT , the Trail making test; TUG , the Timed-up & go; YA , young adults Inhibitory control during the balance-related tasks Relations between inhibition in balance-related tasks and general inhibition tests Table 3 presents the correlation analysis between variables that represent cognitive and motor inhibition in the stepping and gait initiation-stop tasks, and general tests assessing inhibition, such as the Go/no-go test and the Stop-signal test. Overall, YA exhibited ‘meaningful’ correlation coefficients (above 0.3) for both cognitive inhibition (CoP onset and CoP duration) and motor inhibition (StopGo integrals), whereas OA did not show comparably high correlation coefficients for either type of inhibition. In YA, cognitive inhibition of the stepping task correlated significantly with reaction time in the Go/no-go test (CoP onset: r (16) = .719, p = .001; CoP duration: r (16) = − .449, p = .063) and failure rate in both Go/no-go test (CoP duration: r (16) = .639, p = .004) and the Stop-signal test (CoP onset: r (16) = − .409, p = .092; CoP duration: r (16) = .478, p = .045), while motor inhibition of the gait initiation-stop task correlated with stop signal reaction time in the Stop-signal test (StopGo integrals: r (12) = .400, p = .224), despite the lack of statistical significance. Table 3 Correlation coefficients assessing relations between general inhibition tests and cognitive and motor inhibition in balance-related tasks The stepping task The gait initiation-stop task CI CoP onset CI CoP duration MI StopGo integrals YA OA YA OA YA OA GNG Reaction time (ms) 0.719 -0.278 -0.449 0.007 0.042 0.186 Failure (%) -0.246 -0.267 0.639 -0.192 -0.207 0.090 SST SSRT (ms) -0.162 -0.127 -0.117 -0.126 0.400 0.170 Failure (%) -0.409 0.142 0.478 -0.116 0.185 0.139 Notes: Correlation coefficients greater than 0.3 are indicated in bold, while p -values below 0.05 are shown in italics CI , cognitive inhibition; CoP , Center of pressure; GNG , the Go/no-go test; MI , motor inhibition; OA , older adults; SSRT , stop signal reaction time; SST , the Stop-signal test; YA , young adults Relations between inhibition in balance-related tasks and other general executive function tests Appendix 2 shows a correlation matrix between cognitive and motor inhibition variables of the BRTs and other executive functions tests. Generally, no ‘meaningful’ correlation coefficients (exceeding 0.3) were found in YA and OA, except for the variable of cognitive inhibition for CoP duration. In addition to the significant correlations between the cognitive inhibition for CoP duration and general inhibition tests (see Table 3 ), YA displayed ‘meaningful’ correlation coefficients with cognitive inhibition for CoP duration and both the Forward ( r (16) = − .385, p = .115) and Backward ( r (16) = − .334, p = .176) Corsi block tests, though not achieving statistical significance. In OA, however, the cognitive inhibition for CoP duration did not correlate with the inhibition tests, but correlated with the Trail making test A ( r (38) = − .329, p = .039) and the Forward Corsi block test ( r (38) = .308, p = .053). Relations between the two balance-related tasks Overall performance in the stepping and gait initiation-stop tasks (i.e., total step execution and success rate) did not relate to each other (see Table 4 ). The motor inhibition (StopGo integrals) exhibited comparatively higher correlation coefficients with the cognitive inhibition for CoP duration in YA ( r (12) = − .407, p = .149) and with the total step execution in OA ( r (33) = .330, p = .057), though non-significant. Table 4 Correlation coefficients evaluating relations between the balance-related tasks for young and older adults Gait initiation-stop task MI StopGo integrals Success (%) YA OA YA OA Stepping task CI CoP onset -0.143 -0.281 0.244 -0.020 CI CoP duration -0.407 0.036 0.060 -0.057 Total step execution (ms) 0.262 0.330 0.032 -0.064 Notes: Correlation coefficients greater than 0.3 are indicated in bold, while p -values below 0.05 are shown in italics CI , cognitive inhibition; CoP , Center of pressure; MI , motor inhibition; OA , older adults; YA , young adults Notable patterns linking physical functions tests and balance-related tasks In OA, physical functions assessed by general tests, including the Berg balance scale and the Timed-up & go at normal and fast speeds, exhibited more ‘meaningful’ correlation coefficients with BRTs compared to YA (see Appendix 2). In contrast to YA, who showed a correlation only between cognitive inhibition for CoP onset and the ABC test ( r (16) = .358, p = .145), both cognitive inhibition and motor inhibition in OA were correlated with physical functions tests: CoP onset correlated with the Timed-up & go at fast speed ( r (38) = − .393, p = .013) and the Berg balance scale ( r (38) = .393, p = .013); CoP duration correlated with the Timed-up & go at normal speed ( r (38) = − .403, p = .010); StopGo integrals correlated with the Timed-up & go at normal ( r (33) = .334, p = .528) and fast speed ( r (38) = .355, p = .194) and the Berg balance scale ( r (38) = − .505, p = .048). Total step execution correlated with the Timed-up & go at normal ( r (16) = .346, p = .533) and fast speed ( r (16) = .494, p = .637) in YA, though not statistical significant, and significantly with the Berg balance scale ( r (37) = − .323, p = .002) in OA. In contrast to aforementioned associations, success rate neither showed correlations with physical functions tests in YA nor OA. Key determinants influencing overall performance in the balance-related tasks Table 5 presents the regression analysis using predictors derived from general tests assessing executive and physical functions, limited to variables with ‘meaningful’ correlation coefficients (refer to Appendix 2 for the results of the correlation analysis). The Berg balance scale was excluded for YA, as all participants achieved the maximum score, resulting in zero variability. Overall, better models were observed for YA compared to OA in both BRTs, with particularly strong performance in the stepping task (see Table 5 ). The model for overall outcome in the stepping task (total step execution) demonstrated that reaction time in the Go/no-go test significantly predicted performance in both YA and OA. Additionally, the Trail making test A significantly predicted total step execution in YA, while stop signal reaction time was a significant predictor in OA. The models exhibited coefficient of determination values of 0.62 for YA and 0.36 for OA. In YA, performance in the gait initiation-stop task showed that reaction time in the Go/no-go test and the Trail making test B-A were significant predictors, with a coefficient of determination value of 0.56, similar to the stepping task. However, in OA, no variables demonstrated ‘meaningful’ correlation coefficients, and therefore, regression analysis was not conducted. Table 5 Regression analysis for overall outcome of the balance-related tasks for young and older adults YA OA β Std. error t p -value β Std. error t p -value Total step execution (Intercept) 356.04 243.45 1.46 .164 (Intercept) 178.8 287.01 0.62 .537 RT in GNG 2.79 0.67 4.15 .001 RT in GNG 2.15 0.53 4.03 .000 TMT-A -12.88 4.14 -3.11 .007 SSRT 1.18 0.55 2.15 .038 R 2 F-statistic R 2 F-statistic 0.62 F (2.15) = 12.4 .001 0.36 F (2.36) = 10.3 .000 Success (Intercept) -1.78 1.36 -1.31 .217 RT in GNG 0.01 0.00 2.27 .044 TMT difference -0.02 0.01 -2.90 .014 R 2 F-statistic 0.56 F (2.11) = 6.97 .011 Β , regression coefficient; GNG , the Go/no-go test; OA , older adults; R 2 , Coefficient of determination (R-squared); RT , reaction time; SSRT , stop signal reaction time; Std , Standard; t , t-statistic; TMT , the Trail making test; YA , young adults Discussion Our study aimed to examine whether inhibitory effects observed in two novel BRTs associate with inhibition measured by general inhibition tests, and whether it is associated with other measures of executive functions (cognitive flexibility and working memory). In addition, the relations between the BRTs incorporating cognitive and motor inhibition were examined. Finally, significant predictors of the performance in the BRTs were investigated among executive and physical functions assessed through general tests in YA and OA. Our results suggest that performance of the BRTs incorporating cognitive and motor inhibition, respectively, indeed specifically requires each type of inhibitory control, rather than other executive functions. In addition, executive functions significantly affect performance of the BRTs, rather than physical functions. A key finding of our study is that, unlike in YA, the OA did not show consistent associations between general inhibition tests and the BRTs, nor could their performance on the BRTs be predicted. The next sections will first address the specific age-related differences in executive and physical functions assessed by general tests, then discuss the findings in YA and end with a discussion of the findings in OA and their implications. Age-related differences in general tests assessing executive and physical functions Participants in the older group of this study seemed to be in optimal physical health, with an average of 5 hours and 10 hours per week dedicated to exercise and home-based physical activity, and a fall incidence of 20%. This fall incidence is lower than the global average of 27–35% among OA [ 27 , 28 ]. Activity levels of our older participants adhere to the maximal recommended dose of physical activity for OA (150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity activity weekly), which contrast with the fact that less than 15% of OA meet these guidelines [ 29 ]. Despite of the optimal physical health in OA, all general tests examining cognitive and physical functions have identified statistically significant age-related differences, except for the failure rate in the Go/no-go and Stop signal tests, as well as Timed-up and go test at normal speed. Furthermore, OA exhibited overall greater variability, as measured by standard deviation, except in the failure rates and Corsi block test. Reaction time and failure rate in the Go/no-go test in OA align with a previous study using an equal proportion of No-go trials, showing a reaction time of approximately 500 ms and a 6% failure rate [ 30 ]. In contrast, YA in the present study responded about 100 ms faster but exhibited a 3% higher failure rate compared to the previous findings [ 30 ], indicating a speed-accuracy tradeoff [ 31 , 32 ]. Stop signal reaction time in YA closely mirror that reported in a previous paper examining the stop signal test across the life span (248 ms by Bedard et al., (2002a) vs. 240 ms in the current study). However, OA in our study demonstrated better stop signal reaction time (329 ms by Bedard et al., (2002) vs. 275 ms in the current study). The stringent data processing, which is applied (i.e., excluding data with the failure rate 75%) to ensure a reliable stop signal reaction time [ 20 ], may have contributed to the absence of significant age-related differences in failure rate. Physical functions, as assessed by the Timed-up and go at normal pace, did not show differences between OA and YA. However, YA performed significantly faster at a fast pace. The two balance-related tasks capture different aspects of inhibitory control Theoretical distinctions in inhibitory functions, such as controlling attention versus suppressing inappropriate responses, have led to the use of different terms, including cognitive and motor inhibition [ 34 , 35 ]. Different aspects of inhibitory control have been confirmed through neuroimaging techniques, which reveal that cognitive and motor inhibition, despite superficial similarities, rely on distinct subcortical mechanisms with differences in both location and activation patterns [ 35 – 39 ]. In the current study, we identified that in YA, cognitive inhibition integrated into a BRT is associated with cognitive inhibition (attentional/interference control) measured by the Go/no-go test, and that motor inhibition during a BRT associates with motor inhibition (action cancellation/suppression) measured by the Stop-signal test, respectively. These findings demonstrate a specificity of cognitive and motor inhibition as well as a convergence between these specific inhibitory processes integrated into the BRTs and those measured by general tests. The ‘Unity/Diversity framework’ proposed by Miyake et al., (2000), a widely regarded model for understanding executive functions, emphasizes the significant intercorrelations among the core components of executive functions while affirming their distinctiveness. In our data of YA, both cognitive and motor inhibition integrated in the BRTs were associated with general inhibition tests. However, they mostly did not show associations with other executive functions, thus demonstrating a clear divergence within the broader executive function framework. The only exception to this finding was the effect of cognitive inhibition on CoP duration (defined as the interval between CoP onset and heel off). During this phase, postural correction and/or adjustments may be needed [ 41 , 42 ]. Thus, during the CoP duration phase, the interaction between information processing and fine-tuning of postural coordination requires broader executive functions. This suggests the complex interplay of cognitive and physical functions during the CoP duration requires the involvement of complex executive functions. The interrelated features of executive functions (explained by the ‘Unity/Diversity framework’ [ 40 ]) may contribute to the well-known ‘task impurity problem’, as general inhibition tests often incorporate lower-level processes, such as attention and processing time, in addition to inhibitory control [ 43 , 44 ]. Using adjusted measures, such as combining accuracy and speed, offers a more effective approach to mitigating task impurity and provides a clearer understanding of specific types of inhibition compared to relying solely on raw variables, such as reaction time [ 43 ]. In a corresponding way, the examination of cognitive and motor inhibition within the BRTs in the present study may enhance specificity by accounting for inhibition effects (i.e., incongruent compared to congruent trials, and stop compared to go trial). Furthermore, no significant associations were observed between variables indicating cognitive and motor inhibition within the BRTs, nor between the overall performance between stepping and gait-initiation tasks, demonstrating a disparate structure. Cognitive functions partially predict performance of the two balance-related tasks In addition to processing time (reaction time in the Go/no-go test), basic processing speed and visual perceptual ability, as measured by TMT A, significantly predicted overall performance in the stepping task, while cognitive flexibility and working demands, assessed by TMT difference [ 45 ], was a significant predictor of overall performance in the gait initiation-stop task. Although the latter BRT ultimately relies on “pure” postural control to successfully maintain balance and remain standing, the gait initiation-stop task may have demanded more cognitive control than the stepping task because of the critical role of higher-order executive functions in perceiving and correcting instability. Instability was much more prominent in the gait initiation-stop task than the stepping task. In addition, cognitive flexibility closely intercorrelates with inhibition, to the extent that it integrates inhibition as part of its broader adaptive control processes [ 46 , 47 ]. Several studies point to the relevance of balance assessment tools that include cognitive functions for understanding real-life mobility [ 48 , 49 ] and fall risk [ 50 , 51 ]. Our findings underscore the necessity of novel diagnostic approaches. Particularly in OA, BRTs, mimicking aspects of everyday activities, as in the present study may be valuable for evaluating individual performance and assessing fall risk, providing a foundation for the development of diagnostic tools tailored to older populations. Findings in older adults Findings in OA were not consistent with the features of convergence, divergence , and disparate structure in the BRTs as observed among YA. The lack of consistent associations between the general inhibition tests and the BRTs, along with the less predictable performance of the BRTs performance observed in OA, may be related to cognitive compensatory processes and age-related changes in brain activity. Neurophysiological studies of general inhibition tests indicate that, unlike YA, OA do not exhibit distinctly prominent brain activity associated with inhibitory control [ 52 , 53 ]. Instead, inhibitory control-related activity occurs in conjunction with more widespread neural activation [ 53 , 54 ]. The two novel BRTs simultaneously demand cognitive functions (amongst which inhibition), balance control and the preparation (and execution) of step responses, which may elicit an even larger neural engagement than general inhibition tests, potentially leading to a diffusion of resources. Thus, OA may need to allocate executive and physical resources more broadly, reducing their efficiency and consistency. One theory, known as ‘ dedifferentiation ’ , explains age-related changes in the brain by postulating a reduction in activity within task-specific areas in OA [ 55 ]. As a result, OA rely on broader activation of brain regions, which may hinder processing speed and reduce neural efficiency. Another theory addressing the same phenomenon from a different perspective is the ‘ scaffolding theory of aging and cognition’ [ 56 ]. This theory posits that functional and structure declines in the aging brain are compensated through the recruitment of alternative neural networks, which act as a compensatory mechanism to support cognitive functions. Consistent with previous reports of more pronounced age-related declines in motor inhibition than cognitive inhibition [ 5 , 57 ], our findings reveal that cognitive inhibition during the BRT did not exhibit statistically significant age-related differences, whereas motor inhibition did. This suggests differing degrees of age-related changes in cognitive and motor inhibition. Furthermore, our findings demonstrated the absence of a predictive model in OA for motor inhibition in the BRT. The lack of predictability may possibly be caused by less consistent behavior of OA and an inability to compensate for reduced inhibitory control by other executive functions. Strengths and weaknesses To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate different aspects of inhibitory control, as integrated into two BRTs, as well as general tests, assessing executive and physical functions, within the same participants, comprised of young and older groups. Our findings make an important novel contribution to understanding relations between inhibitory control during balance-related and conventional inhibition tasks performed while sitting, while also examining age-related changes. However, similar studies with a larger sample size are needed to confirm our results and demonstrate the reliability of these findings. Conclusion and outlook Our findings in YA give evidence of task specific aspects of inhibitory control in the two BRTs. The absence of similar results in OA may reflect cognitive compensatory processes. These behavioral findings provide a crucial foundation for further research exploring the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying age-related changes in inhibitory control integrated into BRTs. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need of novel approaches to understand and assess individual performance in complex balance-related tasks. Cognitive and motor inhibition integrated into the BRTs more closely resemble aspects of everyday performance compared to general inhibition tests, while at least partially aligning with the results of cognitive and motor inhibition measured by Go/no-go and Stop signal tests in YA. Particularly in OA, BRTs as in the present study may be valuable for evaluating individual performance and assessing fall risk, providing a foundation for the development of diagnostic tools tailored to older populations. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Author Contribution E. Kwag: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, and W. Zijlstra: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Resources, Supervision Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the persons who participated in the research project “Investigation of the performance of balance tasks requiring inhibitory control in healthy young and healthy older persons.” Data Availability Data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available upon request to the corresponding author. References Buta B, Friedman AB, Chung S-E, Sheehan OC, Blinka MD, Gearhart SL, et al. The combined effects of physical frailty and cognitive impairment on emergency department- versus direct-admission hospitalizations. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):718. Grobe S, Kakar RS, Smith ML, Mehta R, Baghurst T, Boolani A. Impact of cognitive fatigue on gait and sway among older adults: A literature review. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2017;6:88–93. Hasher L, Zacks RT. Working Memory, Comprehension, and Aging: A Review and a New View. Psychol Learn Motiv - Adv Res Theory. 1988;22(C):193–225. Bruin de A, Sala S Della. Effects of age on inhibitory control are affected by task-specific features. Q J Exp Psychol. 2018;71(5):1219–1233. Rey-Mermet A, Gade M. Inhibition in aging: What is preserved? What declines? A meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018;25(5):1695–1716. Tiego J, Testa R, Bellgrove MA, Pantelis C, Whittle S. A Hierarchical Model of Inhibitory Control. Front Psychol. 2018;9(AUG):1339. Netz Y, Zeev A, Dunsky A. Postural control and posture-unrelated attention control in advanced age—An exploratory study. Maturitas. 2018;116:130–136. Bolton DAE, Richardson JK. Inhibitory Control and Fall Prevention: Why Stopping Matters. Front Neurol. 2022;13:853787. Kwag E, Zijlstra W. Balance tasks requiring inhibitory control; a scoping review of studies in older adults. Gait and Posture. 2022;93:126–134. Kwag E, Komnik I, Bachmann D, Zijlstra W. Motor inhibition during voluntary gait initiation in young and older adults. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):28094. Kwag E, Bachmann D, Kim K, Komnik I, Zijlstra W. A novel approach to examine motor inhibitory control during voluntary gait initiation in young and older adults. Gait Posture. 2022;97:S44. Kwag E, Bachmann D, Kim K, Komnik I, Zijlstra W. Effects of Cognitive Inhibition Preceding Voluntary Step Responses to Visual Stimuli in Young and Older Adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2024;79(4). doi:10.1093/geronb/gbae006. Carson N, Leach L, Murphy KJ. A re-examination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cutoff scores. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018;33(2):379–388. Diamond A. Executive Functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64(1):135–168. Simmonds DJ, Pekar JJ, Mostofsky SH. Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(1):224–232. Criaud M, Boulinguez P. Have we been asking the right questions when assessing response inhibition in go/no-go tasks with fMRI? A meta-analysis and critical review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37(1):11–23. Nigg JT. On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(2):220–46. Verbruggen F, Logan GD. Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(11):418. Berg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams J. The Balance Scale: reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. J Rehabil Med. 1995;27(1):27–36. Verbruggen F, Aron AR, Band GPH, Beste C, Bissett PG, Brockett AT, et al. A consensus guide to capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in the stop-signal task. Elife. 2019;8. doi:10.7554/eLife.46323. Hassanzad M, Hajian-Tilaki K. Methods of determining optimal cut-point of diagnostic biomarkers with application of clinical data in ROC analysis: an update review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024;24(1):1–13. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–191. Magnard J, Berrut G, Couturier C, Cattagni T, Cornu C, Deschamps T. Perceptual Inhibition Is Not a Specific Component of the Sensory Integration Process Necessary for a Rapid Voluntary Step Initiation in Healthy Older Adults. Journals Gerontol Ser B. 2020;75(9):1921–1929. Mukaka MM. A guide to appropriate use of Correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69. Gupta A, Stead TS, Ganti L. Determining a Meaningful R-squared Value in Clinical Medicine. Acad Med Surg. 2024. doi:10.62186/001c.125154. Chicco D, Warrens MJ, Jurman G. The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2021;7:1–24. Salari N, Darvishi N, Ahmadipanah M, Shohaimi S, Mohammadi M. Global prevalence of falls in the older adults: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):334. World Health Organization. WHO global report on falls prevention in older age. 2007. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241563536. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report: Implementation Strategies for Older Adults. 2023. https://odphp.health.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/PAG_MidcourseReport_508c_final.pdf. Hsieh S, Wu M, Tang CH. Inhibiting prepotent responses in the elderly: Distraction and disinhibition. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2016;16(1):124–134. Wickelgren WA. Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1977;41(1):67–85. Paul M. Fitts. The Information Capacity of the Human Motor System in Controlling the Amplitude of Movement. J Exp Psychol. 1954;47(6):381–391. Bedard AC, Nichols S, Barbosa JA, Schachar R, Logan GD, Tannock R. The development of selective inhibitory control across the life span. Dev Neuropsychol. 2002;21(1):93–111. Harnishfeger KK. The development of cognitive inhibition: Theories, definitions, and research evidence. In: F. N. Dempster & C. J. Brainerd, editor. Interference and Inhibition in Cognition. 1995. Elsevier: 175–204. Lustig C, Hasher L, Zacks RT. Inhibitory deficit theory: Recent developments in a ‘new view’. In: D. S. Gorfein & C. M. MacLeod, editor. Inhibition in cognition. 2008. American Psychological Association: 145–162. Littman R, Takács Á. Do all inhibitions act alike? A study of go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. PLoS One. 2017;12(10). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186774. Raud L, Westerhausen R, Dooley N, Huster RJ. Differences in unity: The go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different mechanisms. Neuroimage. 2020;210:116582. Guo Y, Schmitz TW, Mur M, Ferreira CS, Anderson MC. A supramodal role of the basal ganglia in memory and motor inhibition: Meta-analytic evidence. Neuropsychologia. 2018;108:117–134. Aron AR. From reactive to proactive and selective control: Developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses. Biological Psychiatry. 2011;69(12). doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.024. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex ‘Frontal Lobe’ tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41(1):49–100. Cohen RG, Nutt JG, Horak FB. Errors in postural preparation lead to increased choice reaction times for step initiation in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(6):705–13. Sun R, Guerra R, Shea JB. The posterior shift anticipatory postural adjustment in choice reaction step initiation. Gait Posture. 2015;41(4):894–898. Gärtner A, Strobel A. Individual Differences in Inhibitory Control: A latent Variable Analysis. J Cogn. 2021;4(1):1–18. Friedman NP, Miyake A. Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions: Individual Differences as a Window on Cognitive Structure. Cortex. 2016;86:186. Sánchez-Cubillo I, Periáñez JA, Adrover-Roig D, Rodríguez-Sánchez JM, Ríos-Lago M, Tirapu J, et al. Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: Role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2009;15(3):438–450. Sambol S, Suleyman E, Scarfo J, Ball M. A true reflection of executive functioning or a representation of task-specific variance? Re-evaluating the unity/diversity framework. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2023;236:103934. Yu S, Stock AK, Münchau A, Frings C, Beste C. Neurophysiological principles of inhibitory control processes during cognitive flexibility. Cereb Cortex. 2023;33(11):6656–6666. Zijlstra W, Giannouli E. Mobility in community-dwelling older adults; what are its determinants? BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):1–4. Giannouli E, Bock O, Zijlstra W. Cognitive functioning is more closely related to real-life mobility than to laboratory-based mobility parameters. Eur J Ageing. 2018;15(1):57–65. Liu-Ambrose T, Pang MYC, Eng JJ. Executive function is independently associated with performances of balance and mobility in community-dwelling older adults after mild stroke: Implications for falls prevention. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;23(2–3):203–210. Seinsche J, Kyprianou E, de Bruin ED, Saibene E, Rizzo F, Carpinella I, et al. Discriminative ability of instrumented cognitive-motor assessments to distinguish fallers from non-fallers. GeroScience. 2024;1–12. Coxon JP, Goble DJ, Leunissen I, Van Impe A, Wenderoth N, Swinnen SP. Functional Brain Activation Associated with Inhibitory Control Deficits in Older Adults. Cereb Cortex. 2016;26(1):12–22. Schmiedt-Fehr C, Mathes B, Kedilaya S, Krauss J, Basar-Eroglu C. Aging differentially affects alpha and beta sensorimotor rhythms in a go/nogo task. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(10):3234–3242. Kawai N, Nakata R, Kubo-Kawai N. Older adults exhibit greater brain activity than young adults in a selective inhibition task by bipedal and bimanual responses: an fNIRS study. Neuroreport. 2020;31(14):1048–1053. Reuter-Lorenz PA, Park DC. Human Neuroscience and the Aging Mind: A New Look at Old Problems. Journals Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010;65B(4):405. Park DC, Reuter-Lorenz P. The Adaptive Brain: Aging and Neurocognitive Scaffolding. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60(1):173–196. Healey R, Goldsworthy M, Salomoni S, Weber S, Kemp S, Hinder MR, et al. Impaired motor inhibition during perceptual inhibition in older, but not younger adults: a psychophysiological study. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):1–14. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix1.pdf Appendix2.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 17 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 04 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 23 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 20 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 01 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Apr, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Apr, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 18 Mar, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 15 Mar, 2025 First submitted to journal 14 Mar, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6225106","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":445061517,"identity":"3ea55793-def0-46de-bf5f-0411c0948967","order_by":0,"name":"Eunyoung Kwag","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"German Sport University Cologne","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eunyoung","middleName":"","lastName":"Kwag","suffix":""},{"id":445061518,"identity":"b88f7c73-cb7a-4264-b9ec-10693daa3b20","order_by":1,"name":"Wiebren Zijlstra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"German Sport University Cologne","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wiebren","middleName":"","lastName":"Zijlstra","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-14 10:08:22","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6225106/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6225106/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44189-x","type":"published","date":"2026-03-17T15:57:45+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":81171648,"identity":"66b2dbca-aa30-41a2-af26-1f9372d08f0b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-23 05:28:37","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":278464,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBalance-related tasks that incorporate inhibitory control\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotes: figure-a. illustrates the process of the Simon-Flanker stepping task that incorporates cognitive inhibition. After a participant makes a response according to the instruction, and once a stable quiet standing position is assumed on a force plate, a researcher initiates the next stimulus presentation. This begins with a display of the (+) symbol, followed by the subsequent arrow stimulus. Figure-b presents an example of stimuli indicating a forward step in the anterior-posterior direction (A-P) and a right step in the medial-lateral direction (M-L) as the correct response, including both congruent and incongruent trials. Figure-c shows the ‘Go’ and ‘Stop’ trials from the gait initiation-stop task that incorporates motor inhibition\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.tiff.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6225106/v1/bfaa87f1e2d8631e51e3f27c.jpg"},{"id":105224484,"identity":"aa6f3688-4880-4802-81d0-ea175a75aa7a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-23 16:14:36","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1947179,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6225106/v1/cfe6af7f-7ca7-40da-901b-2e84b52da0aa.pdf"},{"id":81171651,"identity":"1d4ec2b6-d3af-41e6-8669-aa132011c313","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-23 05:28:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":230387,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6225106/v1/7e1957c211372f1e7dd4f02b.pdf"},{"id":81171650,"identity":"8309f9ab-4227-4d48-87f2-85169ed8ffa3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-23 05:28:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":64884,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix2.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6225106/v1/e7fd5e1234a5824efa59dde3.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Can the effects of cognitive and motor inhibition in balance-related tasks be predicted in young and older persons?","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAge-related changes in functioning can limit activities of daily living and increase the risk of accidents among older adults (OA). Safe mobility in complex everyday life requires the integration of intact physical and cognitive functions. For example, navigating a crowded area safely and efficiently necessitates inhibiting irrelevant distractions while focusing on relevant information. When encountering a sudden obstacle, individuals must quickly stop ongoing or imminent steps to prevent potential accidents. These conditions, which require simultaneous coordination of cognitive and physical performance, may pose heightened risks for OA, particularly for those with cognitive and physical deficits [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe inhibitory deficit hypothesis posits that OA are prone to inefficient inhibitory processes, which affect selective attention and subsequently lead to decreased cognitive performance in various tasks [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. However, age-related changes in inhibitory control vary depending on task-specific features and the type of inhibition [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR5\" citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], suggesting that inhibitory control does not represent a unitary structure. Evidence also indicates that poor inhibitory control is associated with decreased balance performance and/or increased fall risk in OA [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], which highlights the importance of understanding inhibition-related processes within the context of balance-related tasks (BRTs). However, the relations between inhibitory control and balance performance remain unclear as tasks used to assess inhibition have mostly involved button pressing activities performed while sitting (e.g., Go/no-go test, Stop signal test, and Flanker test). A scoping review exploring the performance of BRTs that incorporate inhibitory control found that the few available studies indicate that OA exhibit significant inhibition-induced responses, such as increased response times [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. However, further investigation is needed due to the varied nature of such tasks, which include different types of BRTs, such as gait or step initiation, combined with the complexity of inhibition assessments (e.g., different test types and stimuli).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBuilding on findings of the scoping review [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], two novel BRTs, simulating complex and unexpected situations requiring inhibitory control, were developed: a stepping task that incorporates cognitive inhibition and a gait initiation-stop task that incorporates motor inhibition [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR11\" citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Both BRTs require preparation of a step response, however, whereas the stepping task requires the selection and execution of a correct step in response to a visual stimulus, the gait-initiation stop task requires the successful inhibition of step execution in response to a stop signal. Both BRTs were used to examine effects of age and inhibition on the process of preparing an initial response (preparatory phase) and the execution (or inhibition) of a step response (behavioral phase). In both tasks, performance was assessed using a force plate (to analyze changes in center of pressure (CoP) preceding a step) and a marker-based motion capture system (to analyze the execution of a step). Both BRTs demonstrated significant age-related declines [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR11\" citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. However, it remains unclear whether cognitive and motor inhibition integrated into BRTs associate with cognitive and motor inhibition measured by general inhibition tests, and how performance of the stepping and gait initiation-stop tasks is associated within young adults (YA) and OA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, this study aims to develop a better understanding of the underlying features of the two novel BRTs. First of all, we examine how inhibition effects on these BRTs relate to general tests of inhibition and other executive functions, in order to evaluate whether the BRTs indeed primarily relate to inhibitory control. Secondly, we investigate relations between the two BRTs in order to determine whether these represent the same or different outcomes. Lastly, we determine the extent to which cognitive and physical functions predict overall performance in the BRTs among YA and OA. We hypothesize that in YA as well as in OA the BRTs relate more to inhibitory control than other executive functions, and that the two BRTs represent different aspects of inhibitory control.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study is part of the project \u0026ldquo;Investigation of the performance of balance tasks requiring inhibitory control in healthy young and healthy old persons\u0026rdquo;, which has been approved by the ethics committee of the German Sport University (Nr. 095/2021). All methods were performed in accordance with relevant regulations and guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Healthy young (aged 20\u0026ndash;35 years) and older (aged 65\u0026ndash;75 years) adults participated in the study (YA: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;26, age 26\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4; OA: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;46, age 70\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4) after providing written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Inclusion criteria comprised an intact ability to hear and see (with or without assistive devices) and an absence of health conditions that affect mobility and/or balance. Exclusion criteria comprised acute injuries, chronic diseases, sensory impairments, gait and/or balance deficiencies, and the inability to walk without assistive devices. Exclusion criteria were assessed through a questionnaire, which also included other background questions. Additionally, the Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment test was conducted for a cognitive screening; a cut-off score of \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;23 was used [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e] as exclusion criterion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasurement process and experimental setup\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeasurements were scheduled over two days to avoid cognitive and/or physical fatigue effects. All general tests evaluating executive and physical functions were assessed in the laboratory on the first day of measurement, whereas the two novel BRTs were measured on the second day.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe stepping and gait-initiation stop tasks that incorporate cognitive and motor inhibition, respectively, were conducted in randomized order. The initial posture for each task was to stand on a force plate while focusing on a stimulus presented at the centre of a TV screen (93 x 52 cm). Performance was measured using the force plate (Bertec Corporation, US) at a sampling rate of 1000 Hz and a marker-based 3D-Motion analysis system (Qualysis Motion Capture System, Goteborg, SE). Reflective markers were attached to anatomical points in order to measure positions of body segments with 8 infrared cameras (100 Hz). Visual stimuli of the tasks were developed using custom scripts of MATLAB based on Psychtoolbox-3 (MATLAB, R2022a, MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAssessment of general tests and balance-related tasks integrating inhibition\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGeneral tests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTests assessing executive functions were followed by tests assessing physical functions. Three core components of executive functions were measured [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]: (1) inhibitory control evaluated through web-based tests, including Go/no-go test and Stop-signal test. Performance of the Go/no-go test indicates cognitive inhibition, requiring attentional/interference control [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR16\" citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], while performance of the Stop-signal test indicates motor inhibition, requiring an action cancellation/suppression [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]; (2) cognitive flexibility (paper-and-pencil form): Trail making test and (3) working memory (tapping cubes): Corsi block test. Tests assessing physical functions included: (1) balance test: Berg balance scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e], (2) mobility test: modified Timed-up \u0026amp; go and (3) balance confidence test: Activity-specific balance confidence scale. Detailed information regarding test procedures and variables is provided in Appendix 1. The web-based executive functions tests were developed using custom scripts on the PsyToolkit platform.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eBalance-related tasks that incorporate inhibition\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe stepping task that incorporates cognitive inhibition is designed based on combined principles from a Simon- and Flanker-task (i.e., a Simon-Flanker task by Kwag et al., 2024). The task consisted of 20 congruent and 20 incongruent stimulus-response trials, with five of each across four step directions (forward, backward, left, and right). A participant was required to respond quickly to an \u0026lsquo;arrows\u0026rsquo; stimulus which followed a plus signal, by stepping onto an individually normalized target while shifting their weight, then returning to the starting position before the next trial triggered by the researcher (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e-a for details). A correct response for the Simon-Flanker task was to step into the direction indicated by the middle arrow while ignoring both the location and the direction of the surrounding arrows (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e-b for example of correct response of forward and right).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe gait initiation-stop task that incorporates motor inhibition consisted of three blocks, with each block comprising 9 \u0026lsquo;Go\u0026rsquo; and 3 \u0026lsquo;Stop\u0026rsquo; trials in a randomized order. The participant was required to initiate gait promptly when the light turned to green (i.e., \u0026lsquo;Go\u0026rsquo; trial) and completely block gait initiation, maintaining an upright standing position on the force plate, when the green signal changed from green to red (i.e., \u0026lsquo;Stop\u0026rsquo; trial) in some trials (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e-c) (for detailed information, see Kwag, Komnik, et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u0026lt;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026gt;\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGeneral tests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBefore data analysis, the failure rate of the stop trials in the Stop-signal test was used as an exclusion criterion to ensure reliability of stop signal reaction time estimates. Participants with a probability of responding on stop trials below 0.25 or above 0.75 were excluded [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBalance-related tasks that incorporate inhibition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants with missing data in any type of trial (congruent or incongruent) or step direction in the stepping task, due to instability before stimulus presentation or incorrect step responses, were excluded from further analysis. In the gait initiation-stop task, participants with missing data in \u0026lsquo;Stop\u0026rsquo; trials, caused by excessively fast or delayed responses, were also excluded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData analysis of the BRTs encompassed changes in ground reaction forces and the CoP position from the force plate, as well as step movement from the motion capture system. The ground reaction forces and the CoP signal were filtered using a second-order, recursive Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 5 Hz.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall outcome of the stepping task was assessed by the duration in total step execution, calculated as the mean time between presentation of stimulus and touchdown across all congruent and incongruent trials. Effects of cognitive inhibition were analyzed based on changes in CoP onset and CoP duration, which occur prior to the behavioral phase, such as step execution (for detailed information see Data analysis by Kwag, Bachmann, et al., 2024). Effects of cognitive inhibition were calculated as the additional duration due to inhibition, expressed as the ratio of the difference between incongruent and congruent trial times to the congruent trial time.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the gait initiation-stop task, only trials of comparable difficulty, as determined by ROC-analysis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], were included to examine overall outcome, success rate, and motor inhibition (for detailed information see Data analyses and Results by Kwag, Komnik, et al., 2024). Success was defined as no forward movement in either foot following the stop signal. Motor inhibition was analyzed by estimating integrals based on the amplitude and timing of maximum posterior CoP displacement. The relative motor inhibition during a \u0026lsquo;Stop\u0026rsquo; trial was quantified as: StopGo integrals\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;100 x (CoP integrals of a \u0026lsquo;Stop\u0026rsquo; trial \u0026ndash; mean CoP integrals of all \u0026lsquo;Go\u0026rsquo; trials) / (mean CoP integrals of all \u0026lsquo;Go\u0026rsquo; trials).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing G*Power (version 3.1.9.7 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]), an a priori power analysis and sample size estimation were performed based on step reaction times presented by Magnard et al. (2020). To detect group differences, a total sample size of 32 was calculated, based on an effect size of 1.34, with an alpha level of 0.05 and 95% power. For detecting within-group condition effects, the analysis suggested sample sizes of n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24 for YA and n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;42 for OA, based on effect sizes of 0.58 and 0.45, respectively, with an alpha level of 0.05 and 80% power. Given these outcomes, the higher sample size suggestions were chosen to ensure robust detection of within-group condition effects. Assuming a 10% drop-out rate, a minimum of 26 YA and 46 OA were recruited.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData processing and statistical analysis were carried out using MATLAB software. After identifying multicollinearity using the variance inflation factor, predictors for each executive functions test were determined. The remaining variables were: (1) Reaction time \u0026amp; (2) Failure rate during No-go signal for Go/no-go test, (3) Stop signal reaction time \u0026amp; (4) Failure rate for Stop-signal test, response time for (5) Trail making test Part A and (6) Part B \u0026amp; (7) the difference (B \u0026ndash; A), (8) Forward and (9) Backward product for Corsi block test, the Timed-up \u0026amp; go test at (10) fast \u0026amp; (11) normal walking speeds, (12) the Berg balance scale, and (13) the Activity-specific balance confidence scale. The Welch\u0026rsquo;s t-test is used to compare the means of two groups, and a two-tailed \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value is reported.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfter excluding outliers with a z-score greater than three from each group, Spearman correlations were conducted to examine the relations between the general tests and the BRTs, as well as among the BRTs. Subsequently, a multiple linear regression was performed using only predictors with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.3, employing a stepwise approach with forward selection and backward elimination at a \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value threshold of 0.1 to iteratively refine the model. This approach ensures compliance with model assumptions, such as linearity, and helps prevent overfitting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMagnitude of correlation coefficients was categorized as follows: very high (0.90 to 1.00), high (0.70 to 0.90), moderate (0.50 to 0.70), low (0.30 to 0.50) and negligible (0.00 to 0.30) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. For further analyses, only correlation coefficients exceeding 0.30 were considered \u0026lsquo;meaningful\u0026rsquo;. In the context of regression analysis, the coefficient of determination (R-squared), which ranges from 0 to 1, is considered meaningful when it exceed 0.15 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAfter data processing, missing data resulted in the exclusion of eight YA (stepping task: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3; Stop-signal test: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5) and six OA (Montreal-Cognitive-Assessment test: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1; stepping task: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3; Stop-signal test: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2; gait initiation-stop task: n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1). Finally, full data sets of 18 YA and 40 OA could be included in the analysis. General background data and physical activity-related characteristics are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics of the participants\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCharacteristic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYA (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOA (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAge (years)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGender (number of females (%))\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11 (61)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18 (45)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHeight (cm)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e172.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e172.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMass (kg)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e76.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMoCA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eIndividuals who experienced a fall in the past 12 months (yes)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFear of falling (yes)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExercise (hours/week)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHome-based physical activity (hours/week)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eMoCA\u003c/em\u003e, The Montreal Cognitive Assessment test; \u003cem\u003eOA\u003c/em\u003e, older adults; \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e, standard deviation; \u003cem\u003eYA\u003c/em\u003e, young adults\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u0026lt;Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026gt;\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGeneral tests of executive and physical functions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOA required significantly more time to respond to signals and complete executive function tests than YA, while failure rate in the inhibition tests did not differ significantly between YA and OA, with a smaller standard deviation in OA (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e-a). The product score of the working memory test was greater in YA, with a higher standard deviation in YA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll physical functioning tests exhibited significantly better performance in YA, except for the Timed-up \u0026amp; go test at normal speed (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e-b).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBalance-related tasks that incorporate inhibition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal step execution time of the stepping task incorporating cognitive inhibition was significantly longer in OA than in YA. In contrast, cognitive inhibition effects on CoP onset and CoP duration did not differ between age groups (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e-c).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the gait initiation-stop task incorporating motor inhibition, applying a cut-off value from the ROC-analysis led to additional missing data: YA (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4) and OA (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5). YA demonstrated both a significantly higher success rate and greater motor inhibition than OA (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e-d).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneral tests assessing executive and physical functions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"11\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTest\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYA (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOA (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT-test\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"8\" rowspan=\"9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ea\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGNG\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eReaction time (ms)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e355.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e452.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFailure (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.647\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSST\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSSRT (ms)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e240.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e274.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.006\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFailure (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.080\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTMT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eA (s)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eB (s)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDifference (s)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e47.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCBT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eForward product\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.012\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBackward product\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-3.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eb\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBBT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal score\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-6.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTUG\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNormal (s)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.078\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFast (s)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eABC\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal score (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e96.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e93.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e54.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.018\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ec\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe stepping task\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCI CoP onset\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.310\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCI CoP duration\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.436\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal step execution (ms)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1139.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e96.30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1486.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e199.23\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e55.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ed\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe gait initiation-stop task\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMI StopGo integrals\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-48.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.71\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-47.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.046\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSuccess (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-3.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.006\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"11\"\u003eNotes: a: tests assessing executive functions; b: tests assessing physical functions; c and d represent novel balance-related tasks integrating cognitive (c) and motor inhibition (d)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"11\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eABC\u003c/em\u003e, the Activity-specific balance confidence scale; \u003cem\u003eBBT\u003c/em\u003e, the Berg balance scale; \u003cem\u003eCBT\u003c/em\u003e, the Corsi block test; \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e, cognitive inhibition; \u003cem\u003eCoP\u003c/em\u003e, Center of pressure; \u003cem\u003eGNG\u003c/em\u003e, the Go/no-go test; \u003cem\u003eMI\u003c/em\u003e, motor inhibition; \u003cem\u003eOA\u003c/em\u003e, older adults; \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e, standard deviation; \u003cem\u003eSSRT\u003c/em\u003e, stop signal reaction time; \u003cem\u003eSST\u003c/em\u003e, the Stop-signal test; \u003cem\u003eTMT\u003c/em\u003e, the Trail making test; \u003cem\u003eTUG\u003c/em\u003e, the Timed-up \u0026amp; go; \u003cem\u003eYA\u003c/em\u003e, young adults\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003e\u0026lt;Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026gt;\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInhibitory control during the balance-related tasks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRelations between inhibition in balance-related tasks and general inhibition tests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the correlation analysis between variables that represent cognitive and motor inhibition in the stepping and gait initiation-stop tasks, and general tests assessing inhibition, such as the Go/no-go test and the Stop-signal test. Overall, YA exhibited \u0026lsquo;meaningful\u0026rsquo; correlation coefficients (above 0.3) for both cognitive inhibition (CoP onset and CoP duration) and motor inhibition (StopGo integrals), whereas OA did not show comparably high correlation coefficients for either type of inhibition. In YA, cognitive inhibition of the stepping task correlated significantly with reaction time in the Go/no-go test (CoP onset: \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.719, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001; CoP duration: \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.449, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.063) and failure rate in both Go/no-go test (CoP duration: \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.639, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004) and the Stop-signal test (CoP onset: \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.409, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.092; CoP duration: \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.478, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.045), while motor inhibition of the gait initiation-stop task correlated with stop signal reaction time in the Stop-signal test (StopGo integrals: \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(12)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.400, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.224), despite the lack of statistical significance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelation coefficients assessing relations between general inhibition tests and cognitive and motor inhibition in balance-related tasks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe stepping task\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe gait initiation-stop task\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCI CoP onset\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCI CoP duration\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMI StopGo integrals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGNG\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eReaction time (ms)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.719\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.278\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-0.449\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.186\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFailure (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.246\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.267\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.639\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.192\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.207\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.090\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSST\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSSRT (ms)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.162\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.127\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.117\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.126\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.400\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.170\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFailure (%)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-0.409\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.142\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.478\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.116\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.185\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.139\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003eNotes: Correlation coefficients greater than 0.3 are indicated in bold, while \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values below 0.05 are shown in italics\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e, cognitive inhibition; \u003cem\u003eCoP\u003c/em\u003e, Center of pressure; \u003cem\u003eGNG\u003c/em\u003e, the Go/no-go test; \u003cem\u003eMI\u003c/em\u003e, motor inhibition; \u003cem\u003eOA\u003c/em\u003e, older adults; \u003cem\u003eSSRT\u003c/em\u003e, stop signal reaction time; \u003cem\u003eSST\u003c/em\u003e, the Stop-signal test; \u003cem\u003eYA\u003c/em\u003e, young adults\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u0026lt;Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u0026gt;\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRelations between inhibition in balance-related tasks and other general executive function tests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAppendix 2 shows a correlation matrix between cognitive and motor inhibition variables of the BRTs and other executive functions tests. Generally, no \u0026lsquo;meaningful\u0026rsquo; correlation coefficients (exceeding 0.3) were found in YA and OA, except for the variable of cognitive inhibition for CoP duration. In addition to the significant correlations between the cognitive inhibition for CoP duration and general inhibition tests (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), YA displayed \u0026lsquo;meaningful\u0026rsquo; correlation coefficients with cognitive inhibition for CoP duration and both the Forward (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.385, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.115) and Backward (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.334, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.176) Corsi block tests, though not achieving statistical significance. In OA, however, the cognitive inhibition for CoP duration did not correlate with the inhibition tests, but correlated with the Trail making test A (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(38)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.329, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.039) and the Forward Corsi block test (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(38)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.308, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.053).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRelations between the two balance-related tasks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall performance in the stepping and gait initiation-stop tasks (i.e., total step execution and success rate) did not relate to each other (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The motor inhibition (StopGo integrals) exhibited comparatively higher correlation coefficients with the cognitive inhibition for CoP duration in YA (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(12)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.407, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.149) and with the total step execution in OA (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(33)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.330, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.057), though non-significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCorrelation coefficients evaluating relations between the balance-related tasks for young and older adults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGait initiation-stop task\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMI StopGo integrals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSuccess (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStepping task\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCI CoP onset\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.143\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.281\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.244\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCI CoP duration\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-0.407\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.036\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.057\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal step execution (ms)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.262\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e0.330\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.032\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.064\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003eNotes: Correlation coefficients greater than 0.3 are indicated in bold, while \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-values below 0.05 are shown in italics\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e, cognitive inhibition; \u003cem\u003eCoP\u003c/em\u003e, Center of pressure; \u003cem\u003eMI\u003c/em\u003e, motor inhibition; \u003cem\u003eOA\u003c/em\u003e, older adults; \u003cem\u003eYA\u003c/em\u003e, young adults\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u0026lt;Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u0026gt;\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section4\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNotable patterns linking physical functions tests and balance-related tasks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn OA, physical functions assessed by general tests, including the Berg balance scale and the Timed-up \u0026amp; go at normal and fast speeds, exhibited more \u0026lsquo;meaningful\u0026rsquo; correlation coefficients with BRTs compared to YA (see Appendix 2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to YA, who showed a correlation only between cognitive inhibition for CoP onset and the ABC test (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.358, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.145), both cognitive inhibition and motor inhibition in OA were correlated with physical functions tests: CoP onset correlated with the Timed-up \u0026amp; go at fast speed (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(38)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.393, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.013) and the Berg balance scale (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(38)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.393, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.013); CoP duration correlated with the Timed-up \u0026amp; go at normal speed (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(38)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.403, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.010); StopGo integrals correlated with the Timed-up \u0026amp; go at normal (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(33)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.334, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.528) and fast speed (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(38)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.355, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.194) and the Berg balance scale (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(38)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.505, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.048).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal step execution correlated with the Timed-up \u0026amp; go at normal (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.346, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.533) and fast speed (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(16)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.494, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.637) in YA, though not statistical significant, and significantly with the Berg balance scale (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(37)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.323, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002) in OA. In contrast to aforementioned associations, success rate neither showed correlations with physical functions tests in YA nor OA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eKey determinants influencing overall performance in the balance-related tasks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e presents the regression analysis using predictors derived from general tests assessing executive and physical functions, limited to variables with \u0026lsquo;meaningful\u0026rsquo; correlation coefficients (refer to Appendix 2 for the results of the correlation analysis). The Berg balance scale was excluded for YA, as all participants achieved the maximum score, resulting in zero variability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, better models were observed for YA compared to OA in both BRTs, with particularly strong performance in the stepping task (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe model for overall outcome in the stepping task (total step execution) demonstrated that reaction time in the Go/no-go test significantly predicted performance in both YA and OA. Additionally, the Trail making test A significantly predicted total step execution in YA, while stop signal reaction time was a significant predictor in OA. The models exhibited coefficient of determination values of 0.62 for YA and 0.36 for OA.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn YA, performance in the gait initiation-stop task showed that reaction time in the Go/no-go test and the Trail making test B-A were significant predictors, with a coefficient of determination value of 0.56, similar to the stepping task. However, in OA, no variables demonstrated \u0026lsquo;meaningful\u0026rsquo; correlation coefficients, and therefore, regression analysis was not conducted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e\u0026lt;Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026gt;\u003c/h2\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegression analysis for overall outcome of the balance-related tasks for young and older adults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"11\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. error\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStd. error\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal step execution\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Intercept)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e356.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e243.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.164\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Intercept)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e178.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e287.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.537\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRT in GNG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRT in GNG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.000\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTMT-A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-12.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-3.11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.007\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSSRT\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.038\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF-statistic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF-statistic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2.15)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.001\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2.36)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.000\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSuccess\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Intercept)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-1.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.217\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRT in GNG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.27\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.044\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTMT difference\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-2.90\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.014\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eF-statistic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2.11)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e.011\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"11\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eΒ\u003c/em\u003e, regression coefficient; \u003cem\u003eGNG\u003c/em\u003e, the Go/no-go test; \u003cem\u003eOA\u003c/em\u003e, older adults; \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, Coefficient of determination (R-squared); \u003cem\u003eRT\u003c/em\u003e, reaction time; \u003cem\u003eSSRT\u003c/em\u003e, stop signal reaction time; \u003cem\u003eStd\u003c/em\u003e, Standard; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e, t-statistic; \u003cem\u003eTMT\u003c/em\u003e, the Trail making test; \u003cem\u003eYA\u003c/em\u003e, young adults\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur study aimed to examine whether inhibitory effects observed in two novel BRTs associate with inhibition measured by general inhibition tests, and whether it is associated with other measures of executive functions (cognitive flexibility and working memory). In addition, the relations between the BRTs incorporating cognitive and motor inhibition were examined. Finally, significant predictors of the performance in the BRTs were investigated among executive and physical functions assessed through general tests in YA and OA. Our results suggest that performance of the BRTs incorporating cognitive and motor inhibition, respectively, indeed specifically requires each type of inhibitory control, rather than other executive functions. In addition, executive functions significantly affect performance of the BRTs, rather than physical functions. A key finding of our study is that, unlike in YA, the OA did not show consistent associations between general inhibition tests and the BRTs, nor could their performance on the BRTs be predicted.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe next sections will first address the specific age-related differences in executive and physical functions assessed by general tests, then discuss the findings in YA and end with a discussion of the findings in OA and their implications.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAge-related differences in general tests assessing executive and physical functions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants in the older group of this study seemed to be in optimal physical health, with an average of 5 hours and 10 hours per week dedicated to exercise and home-based physical activity, and a fall incidence of 20%. This fall incidence is lower than the global average of 27–35% among OA [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Activity levels of our older participants adhere to the maximal recommended dose of physical activity for OA (150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity activity weekly), which contrast with the fact that less than 15% of OA meet these guidelines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite of the optimal physical health in OA, all general tests examining cognitive and physical functions have identified statistically significant age-related differences, except for the failure rate in the Go/no-go and Stop signal tests, as well as Timed-up and go test at normal speed. Furthermore, OA exhibited overall greater variability, as measured by standard deviation, except in the failure rates and Corsi block test. Reaction time and failure rate in the Go/no-go test in OA align with a previous study using an equal proportion of No-go trials, showing a reaction time of approximately 500 ms and a 6% failure rate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, YA in the present study responded about 100 ms faster but exhibited a 3% higher failure rate compared to the previous findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e], indicating a speed-accuracy tradeoff [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Stop signal reaction time in YA closely mirror that reported in a previous paper examining the stop signal test across the life span (248 ms by Bedard et al., (2002a) vs. 240 ms in the current study). However, OA in our study demonstrated better stop signal reaction time (329 ms by Bedard et al., (2002) vs. 275 ms in the current study). The stringent data processing, which is applied (i.e., excluding data with the failure rate \u0026lt; 25% or \u0026gt; 75%) to ensure a reliable stop signal reaction time [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e], may have contributed to the absence of significant age-related differences in failure rate. Physical functions, as assessed by the Timed-up and go at normal pace, did not show differences between OA and YA. However, YA performed significantly faster at a fast pace.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe two balance-related tasks capture different aspects of inhibitory control\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical distinctions in inhibitory functions, such as controlling attention versus suppressing inappropriate responses, have led to the use of different terms, including cognitive and motor inhibition [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Different aspects of inhibitory control have been confirmed through neuroimaging techniques, which reveal that cognitive and motor inhibition, despite superficial similarities, rely on distinct subcortical mechanisms with differences in both location and activation patterns [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR36 CR37 CR38\" citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. In the current study, we identified that in YA, cognitive inhibition integrated into a BRT is associated with cognitive inhibition (attentional/interference control) measured by the Go/no-go test, and that motor inhibition during a BRT associates with motor inhibition (action cancellation/suppression) measured by the Stop-signal test, respectively. These findings demonstrate a specificity of cognitive and motor inhibition as well as a convergence between these specific inhibitory processes integrated into the BRTs and those measured by general tests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ‘Unity/Diversity framework’ proposed by Miyake et al., (2000), a widely regarded model for understanding executive functions, emphasizes the significant intercorrelations among the core components of executive functions while affirming their distinctiveness. In our data of YA, both cognitive and motor inhibition integrated in the BRTs were associated with general inhibition tests. However, they mostly did not show associations with other executive functions, thus demonstrating a clear divergence within the broader executive function framework. The only exception to this finding was the effect of cognitive inhibition on CoP duration (defined as the interval between CoP onset and heel off). During this phase, postural correction and/or adjustments may be needed [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. Thus, during the CoP duration phase, the interaction between information processing and fine-tuning of postural coordination requires broader executive functions. This suggests the complex interplay of cognitive and physical functions during the CoP duration requires the involvement of complex executive functions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe interrelated features of executive functions (explained by the ‘Unity/Diversity framework’ [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]) may contribute to the well-known ‘task impurity problem’, as general inhibition tests often incorporate lower-level processes, such as attention and processing time, in addition to inhibitory control [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. Using adjusted measures, such as combining accuracy and speed, offers a more effective approach to mitigating task impurity and provides a clearer understanding of specific types of inhibition compared to relying solely on raw variables, such as reaction time [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. In a corresponding way, the examination of cognitive and motor inhibition within the BRTs in the present study may enhance specificity by accounting for inhibition effects (i.e., incongruent compared to congruent trials, and stop compared to go trial). Furthermore, no significant associations were observed between variables indicating cognitive and motor inhibition within the BRTs, nor between the overall performance between stepping and gait-initiation tasks, demonstrating a disparate structure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCognitive functions partially predict performance of the two balance-related tasks\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to processing time (reaction time in the Go/no-go test), basic processing speed and visual perceptual ability, as measured by TMT A, significantly predicted overall performance in the stepping task, while cognitive flexibility and working demands, assessed by TMT difference [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e], was a significant predictor of overall performance in the gait initiation-stop task. Although the latter BRT ultimately relies on “pure” postural control to successfully maintain balance and remain standing, the gait initiation-stop task may have demanded more cognitive control than the stepping task because of the critical role of higher-order executive functions in perceiving and correcting instability. Instability was much more prominent in the gait initiation-stop task than the stepping task. In addition, cognitive flexibility closely intercorrelates with inhibition, to the extent that it integrates inhibition as part of its broader adaptive control processes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral studies point to the relevance of balance assessment tools that include cognitive functions for understanding real-life mobility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e] and fall risk [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. Our findings underscore the necessity of novel diagnostic approaches. Particularly in OA, BRTs, mimicking aspects of everyday activities, as in the present study may be valuable for evaluating individual performance and assessing fall risk, providing a foundation for the development of diagnostic tools tailored to older populations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFindings in older adults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFindings in OA were not consistent with the features of \u003cem\u003econvergence, divergence\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003edisparate structure\u003c/em\u003e in the BRTs as observed among YA. The lack of consistent associations between the general inhibition tests and the BRTs, along with the less predictable performance of the BRTs performance observed in OA, may be related to cognitive compensatory processes and age-related changes in brain activity. Neurophysiological studies of general inhibition tests indicate that, unlike YA, OA do not exhibit distinctly prominent brain activity associated with inhibitory control [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. Instead, inhibitory control-related activity occurs in conjunction with more widespread neural activation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e]. The two novel BRTs simultaneously demand cognitive functions (amongst which inhibition), balance control and the preparation (and execution) of step responses, which may elicit an even larger neural engagement than general inhibition tests, potentially leading to a diffusion of resources. Thus, OA may need to allocate executive and physical resources more broadly, reducing their efficiency and consistency. One theory, known as ‘\u003cem\u003ededifferentiation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cb\u003e’\u003c/b\u003e, explains age-related changes in the brain by postulating a reduction in activity within task-specific areas in OA [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. As a result, OA rely on broader activation of brain regions, which may hinder processing speed and reduce neural efficiency. Another theory addressing the same phenomenon from a different perspective is the ‘\u003cem\u003escaffolding theory\u003c/em\u003e of aging and cognition’ [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. This theory posits that functional and structure declines in the aging brain are compensated through the recruitment of alternative neural networks, which act as a compensatory mechanism to support cognitive functions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsistent with previous reports of more pronounced age-related declines in motor inhibition than cognitive inhibition [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e], our findings reveal that cognitive inhibition during the BRT did not exhibit statistically significant age-related differences, whereas motor inhibition did. This suggests differing degrees of age-related changes in cognitive and motor inhibition. Furthermore, our findings demonstrated the absence of a predictive model in OA for motor inhibition in the BRT. The lack of predictability may possibly be caused by less consistent behavior of OA and an inability to compensate for reduced inhibitory control by other executive functions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrengths and weaknesses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate different aspects of inhibitory control, as integrated into two BRTs, as well as general tests, assessing executive and physical functions, within the same participants, comprised of young and older groups. Our findings make an important novel contribution to understanding relations between inhibitory control during balance-related and conventional inhibition tasks performed while sitting, while also examining age-related changes. However, similar studies with a larger sample size are needed to confirm our results and demonstrate the reliability of these findings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion and outlook","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur findings in YA give evidence of task specific aspects of inhibitory control in the two BRTs. The absence of similar results in OA may reflect cognitive compensatory processes. These behavioral findings provide a crucial foundation for further research exploring the neurophysiological mechanisms underlying age-related changes in inhibitory control integrated into BRTs. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need of novel approaches to understand and assess individual performance in complex balance-related tasks. Cognitive and motor inhibition integrated into the BRTs more closely resemble aspects of everyday performance compared to general inhibition tests, while at least partially aligning with the results of cognitive and motor inhibition measured by Go/no-go and Stop signal tests in YA. Particularly in OA, BRTs as in the present study may be valuable for evaluating individual performance and assessing fall risk, providing a foundation for the development of diagnostic tools tailored to older populations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eE. Kwag: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing, Visualization, and W. Zijlstra: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing, Resources, Supervision\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the persons who participated in the research project \u0026ldquo;Investigation of the performance of balance tasks requiring inhibitory control in healthy young and healthy older persons.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available upon request to the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eButa B, Friedman AB, Chung S-E, Sheehan OC, Blinka MD, Gearhart SL, et al. The combined effects of physical frailty and cognitive impairment on emergency department- versus direct-admission hospitalizations. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):718.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrobe S, Kakar RS, Smith ML, Mehta R, Baghurst T, Boolani A. Impact of cognitive fatigue on gait and sway among older adults: A literature review. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2017;6:88\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHasher L, Zacks RT. Working Memory, Comprehension, and Aging: A Review and a New View. Psychol Learn Motiv - Adv Res Theory. 1988;22(C):193\u0026ndash;225.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBruin de A, Sala S Della. Effects of age on inhibitory control are affected by task-specific features. Q J Exp Psychol. 2018;71(5):1219\u0026ndash;1233.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRey-Mermet A, Gade M. Inhibition in aging: What is preserved? What declines? A meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018;25(5):1695\u0026ndash;1716.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTiego J, Testa R, Bellgrove MA, Pantelis C, Whittle S. A Hierarchical Model of Inhibitory Control. Front Psychol. 2018;9(AUG):1339.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNetz Y, Zeev A, Dunsky A. Postural control and posture-unrelated attention control in advanced age\u0026mdash;An exploratory study. Maturitas. 2018;116:130\u0026ndash;136.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBolton DAE, Richardson JK. Inhibitory Control and Fall Prevention: Why Stopping Matters. Front Neurol. 2022;13:853787.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKwag E, Zijlstra W. Balance tasks requiring inhibitory control; a scoping review of studies in older adults. Gait and Posture. 2022;93:126\u0026ndash;134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKwag E, Komnik I, Bachmann D, Zijlstra W. Motor inhibition during voluntary gait initiation in young and older adults. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):28094.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKwag E, Bachmann D, Kim K, Komnik I, Zijlstra W. A novel approach to examine motor inhibitory control during voluntary gait initiation in young and older adults. Gait Posture. 2022;97:S44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKwag E, Bachmann D, Kim K, Komnik I, Zijlstra W. Effects of Cognitive Inhibition Preceding Voluntary Step Responses to Visual Stimuli in Young and Older Adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2024;79(4). doi:10.1093/geronb/gbae006.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarson N, Leach L, Murphy KJ. A re-examination of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) cutoff scores. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018;33(2):379\u0026ndash;388.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiamond A. Executive Functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64(1):135\u0026ndash;168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimmonds DJ, Pekar JJ, Mostofsky SH. Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(1):224\u0026ndash;232.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCriaud M, Boulinguez P. Have we been asking the right questions when assessing response inhibition in go/no-go tasks with fMRI? A meta-analysis and critical review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013;37(1):11\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNigg JT. On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(2):220\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerbruggen F, Logan GD. Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008;12(11):418.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerg K, Wood-Dauphinee S, Williams J. The Balance Scale: reliability assessment with elderly residents and patients with an acute stroke. J Rehabil Med. 1995;27(1):27\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerbruggen F, Aron AR, Band GPH, Beste C, Bissett PG, Brockett AT, et al. A consensus guide to capturing the ability to inhibit actions and impulsive behaviors in the stop-signal task. Elife. 2019;8. doi:10.7554/eLife.46323.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHassanzad M, Hajian-Tilaki K. Methods of determining optimal cut-point of diagnostic biomarkers with application of clinical data in ROC analysis: an update review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024;24(1):1\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175\u0026ndash;191.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMagnard J, Berrut G, Couturier C, Cattagni T, Cornu C, Deschamps T. Perceptual Inhibition Is Not a Specific Component of the Sensory Integration Process Necessary for a Rapid Voluntary Step Initiation in Healthy Older Adults. Journals Gerontol Ser B. 2020;75(9):1921\u0026ndash;1929.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMukaka MM. A guide to appropriate use of Correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGupta A, Stead TS, Ganti L. Determining a Meaningful R-squared Value in Clinical Medicine. Acad Med Surg. 2024. doi:10.62186/001c.125154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChicco D, Warrens MJ, Jurman G. The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation. PeerJ Comput Sci. 2021;7:1\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalari N, Darvishi N, Ahmadipanah M, Shohaimi S, Mohammadi M. Global prevalence of falls in the older adults: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2022;17(1):334.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. WHO global report on falls prevention in older age. 2007. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241563536.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOffice of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report: Implementation Strategies for Older Adults. 2023. https://odphp.health.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/PAG_MidcourseReport_508c_final.pdf.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHsieh S, Wu M, Tang CH. Inhibiting prepotent responses in the elderly: Distraction and disinhibition. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2016;16(1):124\u0026ndash;134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWickelgren WA. Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1977;41(1):67\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaul M. Fitts. The Information Capacity of the Human Motor System in Controlling the Amplitude of Movement. J Exp Psychol. 1954;47(6):381\u0026ndash;391.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBedard AC, Nichols S, Barbosa JA, Schachar R, Logan GD, Tannock R. The development of selective inhibitory control across the life span. Dev Neuropsychol. 2002;21(1):93\u0026ndash;111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarnishfeger KK. The development of cognitive inhibition: Theories, definitions, and research evidence. In: F. N. Dempster \u0026amp; C. J. Brainerd, editor. Interference and Inhibition in Cognition. 1995. Elsevier: 175\u0026ndash;204.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLustig C, Hasher L, Zacks RT. Inhibitory deficit theory: Recent developments in a \u0026lsquo;new view\u0026rsquo;. In: D. S. Gorfein \u0026amp; C. M. MacLeod, editor. Inhibition in cognition. 2008. American Psychological Association: 145\u0026ndash;162.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLittman R, Tak\u0026aacute;cs \u0026Aacute;. Do all inhibitions act alike? A study of go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. PLoS One. 2017;12(10). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186774.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaud L, Westerhausen R, Dooley N, Huster RJ. Differences in unity: The go/no-go and stop signal tasks rely on different mechanisms. Neuroimage. 2020;210:116582.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuo Y, Schmitz TW, Mur M, Ferreira CS, Anderson MC. A supramodal role of the basal ganglia in memory and motor inhibition: Meta-analytic evidence. Neuropsychologia. 2018;108:117\u0026ndash;134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAron AR. From reactive to proactive and selective control: Developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses. Biological Psychiatry. 2011;69(12). doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.07.024.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex \u0026lsquo;Frontal Lobe\u0026rsquo; tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41(1):49\u0026ndash;100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen RG, Nutt JG, Horak FB. Errors in postural preparation lead to increased choice reaction times for step initiation in older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(6):705\u0026ndash;13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun R, Guerra R, Shea JB. The posterior shift anticipatory postural adjustment in choice reaction step initiation. Gait Posture. 2015;41(4):894\u0026ndash;898.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eG\u0026auml;rtner A, Strobel A. Individual Differences in Inhibitory Control: A latent Variable Analysis. J Cogn. 2021;4(1):1\u0026ndash;18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFriedman NP, Miyake A. Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions: Individual Differences as a Window on Cognitive Structure. Cortex. 2016;86:186.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez-Cubillo I, Peri\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez JA, Adrover-Roig D, Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-S\u0026aacute;nchez JM, R\u0026iacute;os-Lago M, Tirapu J, et al. Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: Role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2009;15(3):438\u0026ndash;450.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSambol S, Suleyman E, Scarfo J, Ball M. A true reflection of executive functioning or a representation of task-specific variance? Re-evaluating the unity/diversity framework. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2023;236:103934.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu S, Stock AK, M\u0026uuml;nchau A, Frings C, Beste C. Neurophysiological principles of inhibitory control processes during cognitive flexibility. Cereb Cortex. 2023;33(11):6656\u0026ndash;6666.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZijlstra W, Giannouli E. Mobility in community-dwelling older adults; what are its determinants? BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):1\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGiannouli E, Bock O, Zijlstra W. Cognitive functioning is more closely related to real-life mobility than to laboratory-based mobility parameters. Eur J Ageing. 2018;15(1):57\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiu-Ambrose T, Pang MYC, Eng JJ. Executive function is independently associated with performances of balance and mobility in community-dwelling older adults after mild stroke: Implications for falls prevention. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2007;23(2\u0026ndash;3):203\u0026ndash;210.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeinsche J, Kyprianou E, de Bruin ED, Saibene E, Rizzo F, Carpinella I, et al. Discriminative ability of instrumented cognitive-motor assessments to distinguish fallers from non-fallers. GeroScience. 2024;1\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoxon JP, Goble DJ, Leunissen I, Van Impe A, Wenderoth N, Swinnen SP. Functional Brain Activation Associated with Inhibitory Control Deficits in Older Adults. Cereb Cortex. 2016;26(1):12\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmiedt-Fehr C, Mathes B, Kedilaya S, Krauss J, Basar-Eroglu C. Aging differentially affects alpha and beta sensorimotor rhythms in a go/nogo task. Clin Neurophysiol. 2016;127(10):3234\u0026ndash;3242.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKawai N, Nakata R, Kubo-Kawai N. Older adults exhibit greater brain activity than young adults in a selective inhibition task by bipedal and bimanual responses: an fNIRS study. Neuroreport. 2020;31(14):1048\u0026ndash;1053.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReuter-Lorenz PA, Park DC. Human Neuroscience and the Aging Mind: A New Look at Old Problems. Journals Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010;65B(4):405.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePark DC, Reuter-Lorenz P. The Adaptive Brain: Aging and Neurocognitive Scaffolding. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60(1):173\u0026ndash;196.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHealey R, Goldsworthy M, Salomoni S, Weber S, Kemp S, Hinder MR, et al. Impaired motor inhibition during perceptual inhibition in older, but not younger adults: a psychophysiological study. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):1\u0026ndash;14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"cognitive control, balance, inhibition, cognitive-motor interaction, compensatory processes","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6225106/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6225106/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates age-related differences in relations between inhibitory control in balance-related tasks (BRTs) and executive and physical functions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorrelations between effects of cognitive and motor inhibition in two BRTs and performance on general tests assessing inhibition and other executive functions, as well as associations between performance of the BRTs were explored in 26 young and 46 older adults (YA: 26±4, OA: 70±4 years). Multiple linear regression evaluated BRT-performance using predictors from general tests of executive and physical functions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSignificant age-related differences were observed in most general tests. In YA, cognitive inhibition in the BRT correlated with reaction time and failure rate in Go/no-go and Stop signal tests, while motor inhibition correlated with stop signal reaction time in Stop signal test. These patterns were not observed in OA. In YA and OA, correlations between the BRTs were minor, and, rather than physical functions, executive functions partially predicted BRT-performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe differential associations of cognitive and motor inhibition in the BRTs with general inhibition tests and the lack of correlations between the BRTs provide evidence that the BRTs comprise different aspects of inhibitory control. The absence of similar results in OA may reflect compensatory processes and age-related changes in cognitive functions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Can the effects of cognitive and motor inhibition in balance-related tasks be predicted in young and older persons?","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-23 05:27:54","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6225106/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-12-04T15:55:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-23T09:53:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-20T14:40:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-01T16:27:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"127136631898099087928392436813368703469","date":"2025-10-30T15:25:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"154553748960829763914660803683712436970","date":"2025-10-28T14:59:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"125407399049324104804418126075269443241","date":"2025-10-28T13:02:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"252793168141584418575990798982157421833","date":"2025-04-04T12:01:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-02T08:08:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-03-18T10:06:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-03-15T11:23:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2025-03-14T10:05:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"37ef5c04-5e6f-4a01-8e89-2b671658e19c","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 23rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":47387790,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology/Human behaviour"},{"id":47387791,"name":"Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Cognitive ageing"},{"id":47387792,"name":"Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Cognitive neuroscience/Cognitive control"},{"id":47387793,"name":"Biological sciences/Neuroscience/Cognitive neuroscience/Problem solving"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-23T16:11:11+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6225106","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44189-x","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-17 15:57:45","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 17th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-23 05:27:54","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-026-44189-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44189-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6225106","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6225106","identity":"rs-6225106","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}