Skip to main content

Quantitative gait analysis in mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and cognitively intact individuals: a cross-sectional case–control study



Cognitive age-related decline is linked to dementia development and gait has been proposed to measure the change in brain function. This study aimed to investigate if spatiotemporal gait variables could be used to differentiate between the three cognitive status groups.


Ninety-three older adults were screened and classified into three groups; mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 32), dementia (n = 31), and a cognitively intact (n = 30). Spatiotemporal gait variables were assessed under single- and dual-tasks using an objective platform system. Effects of cognitive status and walking task were analyzed using a two-way ANCOVA. Sub-comparisons for between- and within-group were performed by one-way ANCOVA and Paired t-tests. Area Under the Curve (AUC) of Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was used to discriminate between three groups on gait variables.


There were significant effects (P < 0.05) of cognitive status during both single and dual-task walking in several variables between the MCI and dementia and between dementia and cognitively intact groups, while no difference was seen between the MCI and cognitively intact groups. A large differentiation effect between the groups was found for step length, stride length, and gait speed during both conditions of walking.


Spatiotemporal gait variables showed discriminative ability between dementia and cognitively intact groups in both single and dual-tasks. This suggests that gait could potentially be used as a clinical differentiation marker for individuals with cognitive problems.

Peer Review reports


Dementia affects approximately 47 million people worldwide, with 10 million new cases reported each year [1]. In East Asia, the prevalence of dementia is increasing which has been shown to be associated with cardiovascular risk factors [2] or exposure to air pollution [3]. In contrast, the declination of dementia incidence was reported in high-income countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, and Iceland [2, 4]. In Thailand, the majority of cases were caused by Alzheimer's disease (AD), followed by vascular dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, frontotemporal dementia, and others [5]. Dementia is a group of different progressive diseases that currently has no cure and is arguably the most pressing public health challenge [2, 6]. It is a syndrome that primarily affects older people and is characterized by a decline in cognitive performance that affects the individual's ability related to cognitive and physical functions [1, 7,8,9,10]. Dementia and falls were reported as the top five causes of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in people aged 75 and older [11]. This is an important cause of disability and dependency and has an impact on family and carers' physical, psychological and social well-being [1, 6, 12]. Among the various problems faced, individuals with dementia frequently experience gait and balance issues, which contribute to a significantly increased risk of falling [13,14,15,16], leading to fractures, hospitalization, functional dependence, or death [1, 14, 15].

Early detection of dementia is frequently challenging, as the functional deficits required for such diagnoses can be caused or exacerbated by comorbidities and social circumstances [17,18,19]. Progression of the disease escalates over time if individuals are misdiagnosed, which leads to inappropriate clinical management [10, 20,21,22]. As a result, it is crucial to detect dementia quickly and accurately, as well as to monitor the disease progression. substantial evidence demonstrates that timely diagnosis and treatment can prevent the progression of dementia or its consequences [16, 21, 23, 24]. A non-invasive, sensitive, and cost-effective marker is therefore required to help identify and classify individuals with cognitive decline [25].

Gait performance has been studied to determine its efficacy in screening individuals with cognitive dysfunction. Clinical and epidemiologic evidence supports the concept that gait is interrelated with cognitive ability in the elderly [26,27,28,29]. It has been reported that healthy younger individuals can preserve their primary walking when faced with a secondary cognitive task, whereas older adults have difficulty in preserving their gait performance during dual tasks, and this capability is greatly reduced in those with cognitive dysfunction [21, 30,31,32]. An attempt to investigate the relationship between gait and cognition not only provides a better understanding of function but also provides an assessment of safety during movement. Decreased ability to walk during a single- or cognitive dual-task has been reported to be a contributing factor to falls in older adults and individuals with cognitive decline [33, 34]. Dual-task gait assessment, where individuals have to perform a secondary attentional challenging task while walking, was shown to be more challenging as the tasks interfere with each other and divide the cortical control resources of the brain [35]. Gait modifications, such as reduced gait speed, rhythm, sway, instability, or stopping walking, can occur while performing the second task together, especially in individuals with cognitive decline [35,36,37]. In addition, a meta-analysis has demonstrated the importance of gait and cognition factors with the dual decline of gait speed and memory having the highest predictive risk of developing dementia among older individuals [31].

The role of using gait in classifying individuals with or without cognitive decline has been shown in the studies [16, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. However, based on the different reports previously, the results varied from study to study. This may be a result of differences in participants' characteristics, measuring equipment, testing variables, and the walking data collection process. Yet most of the reported findings came from western countries [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47] and less was done in Asian countries and reported on a small sample size [16, 38, 39]. Different biological structures, cultures, living behaviors, quality of life, pollution and environment, and education all could influence gait and cognitive profiles. Hence, data from the studies on different populations, especially people in Asian countries, are still needed. In addition, which gait variables are the most sensitive and practical to discriminate between groups of individuals with different cognitive levels is needed. This study therefore explored the use of gait profiles to differentiate people with different cognitive profiles within a South East Asian population.

Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a case–control study to differentiate individuals with and without cognitive impairment. We hypothesized that gait variables would be sensitive enough to differentiate between the groups with and without cognitive impairment, and these would be easier to detect under dual-task conditions.


Study design and recruitment

A cross-sectional case–control study with a convenience sampling method was used. Individuals living with MCI and dementia from the Memory Clinic, Siriraj hospital, Bangkok, Thailand were invited to participate in the study. The individuals who were cognitively intact were recruited from able-bodied individuals who live in Bangkok and metropolitan areas through word-of-mouth. All participants voluntarily participated in the study and were informed about the research objectives, benefits, and details before data collection. Once they understood and agreed to participate, project staff made an appointment for the date and time to measure gait and other related data.


Participants in the MCI, dementia, and cognitively intact groups were subjectively and physically examined by neurologists. Participants were community-dwelling middle and older adults with or without a diagnosis of MCI or dementia. Diagnosis of MCI and dementia was performed through the consensus of expert neurologists and psychologists who have routinely worked at Siriraj hospital based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) criteria [48] and the National Institute of Aging-Alzheimer’s Associaton criteria [49]. The DSM-5 criteria indicate the key symptoms used to distinguish MCI from dementia as the evidence of modest cognitive decline from a previous level of performance in one or more of the listed domains (cognitive deficits are not interfering with the independence of instrumental activities of daily living, cognitive deficits do not occur exclusively in the context of a delirium, and cognitive deficits are not primarily attributable to another mental disorder). The latter criteria indicate the preservation of independence in functional abilities and lack of significant impairment in social or occupational functioning for the MCI. Sub-types of MCI were defined based on the presence or absence of memory difficulties (amnestic and non-amnestic MCI). For the cognitively intact individuals, they had normal cognitive performance and were independent in their daily living activities. The exclusion criteria for all groups of participants were; severe cognitive function, unable to follow commands and instructions, serious infection, psychiatric disorder, epilepsy, and any other conditions that may affect the performance of the walking tasks such as severe pain, being blind, or deaf.


The study was conducted at the Neuro Computational Intelligence for Neuro-Cognitive disorders Laboratory (NN lab), Siriraj Medical Research Center (SiMR), Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. Demographic data recorded included; sex, age, body weight and height, body mass index (BMI), year of education, cognitive function using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), disease duration of the cognitive decline, types, and underlying diseases. MoCA is one of the cognitive tools which was developed by Nasreddine et al. [50]. The total possible score of MoCA ranges from 0–30 scores assessing several cognitive domains (visuospatial/executive, naming, memory, attention, language, abstraction, delayed recall, and orientation). It has been tested for sensitivity and is widely used to investigate cognitive status [50,51,52,53]. In addition, the Functional Ambulatory Category (FAC) is a six-point scale used to evaluate functional gait status. The scale assesses the level of support that the patient requires during walking, regardless of whether or not an assistive device is used [54]. The ambulatory status could be classified into six levels, ranging from non-functional ambulator (FAC = 0) to independent ambulator (FAC = 5). This is a quick visual measurement of functional gait ability and is administered in individuals with dementia [55].

Spatiotemporal gait variables were then collected at 100 Hz using the Force Distribution Measurement (FDM) platform which had a length of 307 cm and width of 60.5 cm (Zebris Medical GmbH, Germany). The platform was installed in the middle part of a 5 m walkway and was synchronized with a video camera (SYNCCam) placed in front of the participants to check walking patterns for each trial. The FDM platform is widely used for gait assessment in various neurological conditions and was used as a gold standard to another proposed tool [56,57,58,59]. To remove the effect of the acceleration and deceleration phases of walking, gait data were recorded from the middle part of the walkway. Spatiotemporal gait data were extracted and analyzed using the WinFDM software (Zebris Medical GmbH, Germany, version 1.18.48).

For the single-task condition, the participants were asked to walk at their own usual walking pace on the walking platform. For the dual-task condition, to monitor the compliance of the testing, participants were asked to count a number backward by one out loud while walking at their usual walking pace [39, 40]. A physical therapist walked slightly behind the participants to prevent slips, trips, and falls during the data collection. Three successful trials were recorded under each condition and the average of the three trials was used in the data analysis.


Spatiotemporal gait variables were used for the comparison and discrimination analyses. These included; foot rotation angle (deg), step length (cm), stride length (cm), step width (cm), stance phase as a percentage of the gait cycle (%GC)), loading response (%GC), single support phase (%GC), pre-swing (%GC), swing phase (%GC), double support phase (%GC), step time (s), stride time (s), cadence (steps/min), and gait speed (m/s).

Data analysis

SPSS version 26.0 (IBM Corp, USA) was used for all analyses. Participant characteristics and clinical variables were descriptively analyzed. A two-way ANCOVA was used to determine the main effects and interaction effects of the cognitive status groups (MCI, dementia, and cognitively intact) and walking task (single and dual). Comparisons of gait variables between the MCI, dementia, and cognitively intact groups during single- and dual-task walking were explored using one-way ANCOVA tests. Regarding age, sex, and BMI are the biological important factors that could affect gait variables, so these factors were used as the covariates in the analysis and the adjusted mean values were reported.

Comparisons of gait variables between single- and dual-task walking were performed within the groups using the Paired t-test. A Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was used for the two-way ANCOVA and one-way ANCOVA tests, and adjusted p-values were used for the Paired t-test analysis by dividing the p-value by the number of variables being tested or number of the test (P < 0.05/14 or P < 0.004). The area under the curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was also used to determine the accuracy of discrete gait parameters between the MCI, dementia, and cognitively intact groups. Accuracy of AUC 0.5 was considered as no discrimination, 0.7–0.8 was considered acceptable, 0.8–0.9 was considered excellent, and more than 0.9 was considered outstanding [60].


Participant characteristics

Participant characteristics are presented in Table 1. Ninety-three participants (70 females and 23 males) were included in this study and were classified into MCI (n = 32), dementia (n = 31), and cognitively intact (n = 30) groups. No differences were found between the groups for sex, body weight, height, and body mass index, with an age range of 63.6 − 71.8 years and mean body weight and height of 56.7 − 63.0 kg and 155.9 − 158.4 cm, respectively. A greater number of females were seen in all three groups (68.75 − 86.67%). Age, year of education, and MoCA showed significant differences between the groups (P < 0.05), with the cognitively intact group being the youngest (63.6 years) and the dementia group being the oldest (71.8 years). The cognitively intact group had the highest year of education (15.9 years) and the dementia group had the lowest (10.4 years). The greatest median MoCA score was seen in the cognitively intact group (28 scores), followed by the MCI group (25 scores), and the lowest was seen in the dementia group (14 scores). The mean onset duration of MCI was 3.38 years, with a similar number of individuals with amnestic and non-amnestic types (n = 15 and n = 17), respectively. The mean onset duration of dementia was 4.68 years, with the most common type being Alzheimer's disease (AD) (n = 20), followed by Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD) (n = 6), Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) (n = 3), and Vascular dementia (VaD) (n = 2). Hypertension was the only underlying disease that showed a difference between groups, with the dementia group having the highest number of individuals (n = 19 or 65.52%), followed by the MCI group (n = 17 or 60.71%), with only 15.3% in the cognitively intact group (n = 4). No other differences were found for underlying diseases between the groups (P > 0.05). All participants in this study could walk on the surface, as shown with the FAC score of 4 and 5 scores. It was found that most individuals with MCI and dementia were able to walk independently (FAC = 5).

Table 1 Participant characteristics

The main effects and interactions of cognitive status and walking task on gait variables

The two-way ANCOVA demonstrated significant interaction effects for cognitive status (MCI, dementia, and cognitively intact) and walking task (single and dual) including step time (P = 0.037, η2p = 0.038) and stride time (P = 0.036, η2p = 0.038). Significant main effects of cognitive status were found in several variables; step length (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.171), stride length (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.171), step width (P = 0.012, η2p = 0.050), stance phase (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.114), loading response (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.117), single support phase (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.098), pre-swing (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.116), swing phase (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.114), double support phase (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.112), step time (P = 0.005, η2p = 0.060), stride time (P = 0.005, η2p = 0.061), cadence (P = 0.002, η2p = 0.069), and gait speed (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.152).

Significant main effects of walking tasks were found in almost all gait variables including; step length (P = 0.001, η2p = 0.061), stride length (P = 0.001, η2p = 0.061), stance phase (P = 0.001, η2p = 0.062), loading response (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.072), single support phase (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.079), pre-swing (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.076), swing phase (P = 0.001, η2p = 0.062), double support phase (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.072), step time (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.258), stride time (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.259), cadence, (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.284), and gait speed (P < 0.001, η2p = 0.185).

Comparison of gait variables between the groups under the single and dual walking tasks

As shown in Table 2, during single-task walking, there were significant differences (P < 0.05) between the groups for step length, stride length, stance phase, loading response, single support phase, pre-swing, swing phase, double support phase, and gait speed. The post-hoc test showed differences between the MCI and dementia groups as well as between dementia and cognitively intact groups. During dual-task walking, significant differences were seen between the groups in all gait variables (P < 0.05), except for foot rotation angle. The post-hoc test showed differences between the MCI and dementia groups as well as between dementia and cognitively intact groups in almost variables.

Table 2 Gait variables of the MCI (n = 32), dementia (n = 31), and cognitively intact (n = 30) groups in single- and dual-task walking (Adjusted means ± standard error)

Comparisons of gait variables between single and dual-task walking within each group

Paired t-tests were used to compare gait variables between single and dual-task walking within each group separately as shown in Table 2. A Bonferroni correction was used to adjust the significance level to allow for the number of comparisons. So, the P-value was set at < 0.05/14 or P < 0.004. Significant differences were found in almost gait variables (P < 0.004) between single- and dual-task walking in the MCI and dementia groups, with exception of the foot rotation angle. For the cognitively intact group, differences were seen only in step length, stride length, step time, stride time, cadence, and gait speed.

Discriminating gait characteristics between the MCI, dementia, and cognitively intact groups

Discriminating gait characteristics between the groups are presented in Table 3. Based on the accuracy value criteria of the AUC of ≥ 0.7 with a statistical significance of < 0.05, it was found that a single spatiotemporal gait variable differentiated between dementia and cognitively intact groups only. For the single-task walking, three variables including step length, stride length, and gait speed provided excellent discrimination levels between the groups (AUC = 0.823–0.849). During dual-task walking, excellent discrimination was found in the same set of gait variables similar to single-task walking and single support phase (AUC = 0.813–0.823), with the highest discrimination ability shown by gait speed.

Table 3 Area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of gait variables between the groups during single- and dual-task walking


No differences in demographic data were seen between the three groups, except for age, year of education, MoCA, and hypertension. The majority of participants in the MCI and dementia groups were female which was consistent with the findings of a previous systematic review [61]. Our findings revealed that the dementia group had the highest average age, which is not surprising given that the disease is more common in older people and its prevalence increases with age [1, 61]. Individuals with AD who participated in our study were in the mild to severe stages with a large range of MoCA scores from 8 − 20. Considering the educational factor, it was not surprising that the dementia group had the lowest level of education. As reported previously, individuals with a higher level of education were more able to maintain cognitive ability than those with a lower level [62].

Among the comorbidities tested in this study, we found that MCI and dementia groups were more afflicted with hypertension and diabetes mellitus than the cognitively intact group. Hypertension is widely known as a major risk factor of damage to several organs, including the brain. Blood pressure variability and 24-h blood pressure profiles have been linked to cognitive impairment and/or silent cerebral diseases, such as silent cerebral infarction or white matter lesions, both of which are risk factors for cognitive impairment and dementia [63]. A certain number of MCI and dementia groups were diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (n = 9 or 31% and n = 7 or 25%, respectively) and cerebrovascular disease (n = 6 or 21% and n = 3 or 11%). Type 2 diabetes mellitus raises the risk of vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease. The underlying mechanisms include the increase in neuronal insulin resistance, impaired insulin signaling, pro-inflammatory state, mitochondrial dysfunction, and vascular damage. All of which increase the deposition of β-amyloid, tau proteins, and GSK3β, leading to an earlier onset of dementia [64].

We found a decrease in gait performance in individuals with cognitive decline when compared with those who were cognitively intact. Specifically decreases in step length, stride length, single support phase, cadence, and gait speed; and increases in stance phase, loading response, pre-swing, double support, step time, and stride time. However, there was no change in the foot rotation angle and step width. Similar to previous findings, these measures of decline in gait performance were noticeable during single-task walking but showed greater deterioration when tested under a dual-task walking condition [36, 40, 65,66,67]. From our findings, there were significant differences in several gait variables between the MCI and dementia groups and between dementia and cognitively intact groups when tested under single- and dual-task walking. However, there were no differences in gait variables between the MCI and cognitively intact groups, whether testing under single- or dual-task walking. This may be the result of several factors, including 1) differences in the sample criteria and classification, 2) variability of the data observed by a larger standard error, even though the mean differences were similar between the groups, 3) dual-task walking test procedure, in which counting backward with one might challenge cognitive function to a lesser extent than other counting tasks such as subtracting by seven [68]. Subtraction with one was chosen in this study because the technique can be used to assess the majority of individuals with dementia. Although the method seems to be very simple, there were five individuals with dementia unable to perform this task. However, our counting method may not cognitively challenge a large number of individuals in the MCI group, thus the results cannot be differentiated from the cognitively intact group. A recent systematic review with meta-analysis. reported that the spatiotemporal gait variables (e.g., gait speed, cadence, stride length, stride time, stride time variability, and stance time) could be used to classify normal and dementia groups when tested using a single task. In addition, the dual-task could differentiate between these two groups using gait speed, stride length, and stride time variability only [69]. Another point of consideration is that the mean values of the gait variables in our study were substantially different from previous reports from Western countries, which may be due to racial, anthropometric, and sociocultural differences.

For the efficacy of using gait variables to compare individuals with different cognitive statuses, all gait variables except foot rotation angle showed significant differences between groups when testing gait under the dual-task condition. When testing with the single-task condition, most gait variables showed discriminating ability between groups, except foot rotation angle, step width, step time, stride time, and cadence. Based on the effect size criterion using the partial Eta square (η2p), which are defined as small (> 0.01), medium (> 0.06), and large (> 0.14) effects. Step length, stride length, and gait speed had large effect sizes when assessed under both the single- and dual-task walking, while other variables (stance phase, loading response, single support phase, pre-swing, swing phase, and double support phase) had medium effect sizes when assessing under the single- and dual-task walking. In addition, medium effects were found in step width, step time, stride time, and cadence when tested under dual-task walking. This was consistent with several previous studies that reported a significant reduction in gait performance as evidenced by reduced step or stride length and reduced gait speed in individuals with cognitive decline compared to healthy controls [24, 39, 40, 66, 67, 70,71,72]. In addition, gait performance was more impaired in the MCI group with episodic of memory decline [41, 71, 73]. However, the differences among studies were due to the characteristics of the participants, equipment, and procedure. For instance, the study done by Zhou et al. used a body-worn system to determine the most sensitive gait parameter in identifying older adults with and without cognitive frailty. The largest effect size was observed with dual-task gait speed with Cohen’s effect size d of 0.97, p < 0.001 only [67]. In contrast, another study reported that gait measures during a dual-task gait were not indicative of cognitive impairment in individuals with Parkinson’s disease [74].

Comparing gait data between single- and dual-task in each group, we found that walking abilities in all groups declined with the cognitive challenge of counting backward by one. Differences were found in most gait variables in both MCI and dementia groups. During the test, we observed that the dementia group demonstrated balance impairments (e.g., unsteady on feet, body swaying). Many of them had an obvious sway during gait with a markedly slower walking speed. This was confirmed by an increase in the double support phase when testing under the dual-task when compared to the single-task, which was 3.25 times higher in the dementia group compared to the cognitively intact group. Likewise, the MCI group was similarly altered and found to be 2.53 times higher than the cognitively intact group. Challenging the brain function by subtracting a number with one while walking seems easy for cognitively intact individuals. However, we found that cognitively intact individuals were still able to preserve function without modifying the phase-related gait variables, although cadence, temporal, and gait speed were found to decrease during the dual-task in this group.

In classifying the groups using the AUC test on different single gait variables as well as the combined variables. The dementia group was differentiated from the cognitively intact group by step length, stride length, single support phase, swing phase, and gait speed under the single- and dual-task walking tests. Cadence can also be used to differentiate these two groups if tested under the dual-task walking condition. Additionally, using the multiple computed gait variables can also be used to differentiate between dementia and cognitively intact groups as well as between the MCI and dementia groups. However, we did not find any variables which could classify the MCI group from the cognitively intact group.

Two previous studies used a wearable tool to differentiate gait in individuals with and without cognitive impairment [67] and among subtypes of dementia [75]. Zhou et al. reported that the single and dual-task gait speed could be used to differentiate cognitive frailty individuals with moderate accuracy (AUC of 0.73 for single-task and 0.76 for dual-task) [67]. MCI or dementia due to AD, dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and PD were able to be differentiated using 14 gait characteristics representing pace, variability, rhythm, asymmetry, and postural control [75]. Whereas this current study identified that all single gait variables, except foot rotation angle, showed the potential to differentiate cognitive statuses under both single and dual-task conditions.

This current study has some limitations as details of variability and asymmetry of gait characteristics were not determined. Gait variables should be analyzed in more diverse perspectives, such as intrapersonal gait variability and asymmetry or the difference between single- and dual-task. Although this study highlights interesting findings a longitudinal study should be performed to obtain a clearer link between the gait parameters and cognition. Comparisons of the data between different types of dementia as well as studying the relationship and underlying mechanism or process between gait and cognition through the mediator should be explored in the future.


Almost all single gait variables, except foot rotation angle and step width, showed the potential to differentiate between cognitive status under both single and dual-task conditions. The largest effects were found in step length, stride length, and in particular gait speed during both walking conditions. Gait speed is therefore recommended to be used to determine early clinical signs of people with cognitive problems, which should improve the accuracy of such diagnostic assessments and highlight the need for early management.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to limitations of ethical approval involving the patient data and anonymity but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



Mild cognitive impairment


Alzheimer's disease


Disability-adjusted life-years


Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition


Montreal Cognitive Assessment


Force Distribution Measurement


Area under the curve


Receiver operating characteristic


  1. Taylor ME, Close JCT. Dementia. Handb Clin Neurol. 2018;159:303–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Prince M, Ali GC, Guerchet M, Prina AM, Albanese E, Wu YT. Recent global trends in the prevalence and incidence of dementia, and survival with dementia. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2016;8(1):23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ru M, Brauer M, Lamarque JF, Shindell D: Exploration of the global burden of dementia attributable to PM2.5: What do we know based on current evidence? Geohealth 2021, 5(5):e2020GH000356.

  4. Mayer F, Remoli G, Bacigalupo I, Palazzesi I, Piscopo P, Bellomo G, Canevelli M, Corbo M, Vanacore N, Lacorte E. A systematic review of studies reporting a decreasing trend in the incidence and prevalence of dementia. Minerva Med. 2021;112(4):430–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dharmasaroja PA, Assanasen J, Pongpakdee S, Jaisin K, Lolekha P, Phanasathit M, Cheewakriengkrai L, Chotipanich C, Witoonpanich P, Pitiyarn S, et al. Etiology of Dementia in Thai Patients. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2021;11(1):64–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Burks HB, des Bordes JKA, Chadha R, Holmes HM, Rianon NJ: Quality of life assessment in older adults with dementia: A systematic review. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2021:1–8.

  7. Hausdorff JM, Buchman AS. What links gait speed and MCI with dementia? A fresh look at the association between motor and cognitive function. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013;68(4):409–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee NG, Kang TW, Park HJ. Relationship between balance, gait, and activities of daily living in older adults with dementia. Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil. 2020;11:2151459320929578.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Ohlin J, Gustafson Y, Littbrand H, Olofsson B, Toots A: Low or declining gait speed is associated with risk of developing dementia over 5 years among people aged 85 years and over. J Aging Phys Act 2021:1–8.

  10. Montero-Odasso M, Speechley M, Muir-Hunter SW, Sarquis-Adamson Y, Sposato LA, Hachinski V, Borrie M, Wells J, Black A, Sejdic E, et al. Motor and cognitive trajectories before dementia: Results from Gait and Brain study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(9):1676–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Diseases GBD, Injuries C. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1204–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cantarero-Prieto D, Leon PL, Blazquez-Fernandez C, Juan PS, Cobo CS. The economic cost of dementia: A systematic review. Dementia (London). 2020;19(8):2637–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. McGough EL, Logsdon RG, Kelly VE, Teri L. Functional mobility limitations and falls in assisted living residents with dementia: physical performance assessment and quantitative gait analysis. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2013;36(2):78–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Taylor ME, Brodie MA, van Schooten KS, Delbaere K, Close JCT, Payne N, Webster L, Chow J, McInerney G, Kurrle SE, et al. Older people with dementia have reduced daily-life activity and impaired daily-Life gait when compared to age-sex matched controls. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;71(s1):S125–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Taylor ME, Lasschuit DA, Lord SR, Delbaere K, Kurrle SE, Mikolaizak AS, Kvelde T, Close JCT. Slow gait speed is associated with executive function decline in older people with mild to moderate dementia: A one year longitudinal study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2017;73:148–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Velayutham SG, Chandra SR, Bharath S, Shankar RG. Quantitative balance and gait measurement in patients with frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer Diseases: A pilot study. Indian J Psychol Med. 2017;39(2):176–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Borders C, Sajjadi SA. Diagnosis and management of cognitive concerns in the oldest-old. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2021;23(3):10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kondragunta J, Hirtz G. Gait parameter estimation of elderly people using 3D human pose estimation in early detection of dementia. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2020;2020:5798–801.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Valkanova V, Ebmeier KP. What can gait tell us about dementia? Review of epidemiological and neuropsychological evidence. Gait Posture. 2017;53:215–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Doi T, Makizako H, Tsutsumimoto K, Hotta R, Nakakubo S, Makino K, Suzuki T, Shimada H. Combined effects of mild cognitive impairment and slow gait on risk of dementia. Exp Gerontol. 2018;110:146–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Montero-Odasso MM, Sarquis-Adamson Y, Speechley M, Borrie MJ, Hachinski VC, Wells J, Riccio PM, Schapira M, Sejdic E, Camicioli RM, et al. Association of dual-task gait with incident dementia in mild cognitive impairment: Results from the gait and brain study. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74(7):857–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. van Iersel MB, Hoefsloot W, Munneke M, Bloem BR, Olde Rikkert MG. Systematic review of quantitative clinical gait analysis in patients with dementia. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2004;37(1):27–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwenk M, Zieschang T, Englert S, Grewal G, Najafi B, Hauer K. Improvements in gait characteristics after intensive resistance and functional training in people with dementia: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14:73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Verghese J, Wang C, Lipton RB, Holtzer R, Xue X. Quantitative gait dysfunction and risk of cognitive decline and dementia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78(9):929–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Varma VR, Ghosal R, Hillel I, Volfson D, Weiss J, Urbanek J, Hausdorff JM, Zipunnikov V, Watts A. Continuous gait monitoring discriminates community-dwelling mild Alzheimer’s disease from cognitively normal controls. Alzheimers Dement. 2021;7(1): e12131.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Montero-Odasso M, Verghese J, Beauchet O, Hausdorff JM. Gait and cognition: a complementary approach to understanding brain function and the risk of falling. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(11):2127–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Parihar R, Mahoney JR, Verghese J: Relationship of gait and cognition in the elderly. Curr Transl Geriatr Exp Gerontol Rep 2013, 2(3):

  28. Scherder E, Eggermont L, Swaab D, van Heuvelen M, Kamsma Y, de Greef M, van Wijck R, Mulder T. Gait in ageing and associated dementias; its relationship with cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2007;31(4):485–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Valkanova V, Esser P, Demnitz N, Sexton CE, Zsoldos E, Mahmood A, Griffanti L, Kivimaki M, Singh-Manoux A, Dawes H, et al. Association between gait and cognition in an elderly population based sample. Gait Posture. 2018;65:240–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ansai JH, Andrade LP, Rossi PG, Takahashi ACM, Vale FAC, Rebelatto JR. Gait, dual task and history of falls in elderly with preserved cognition, mild cognitive impairment, and mild Alzheimer’s disease. Braz J Phys Ther. 2017;21(2):144–51.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Tian Q, Resnick SM, Mielke MM, Yaffe K, Launer LJ, Jonsson PV, Grande G, Welmer AK, Laukka EJ, Bandinelli S, et al. Association of dual decline in memory and gait speed with risk for dementia among adults older than 60 years: A multicohort individual-level meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(2): e1921636.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Rojasavastera R, Bovonsunthonchai S, Hiengkaew V, Senanarong V. Action observation combined with gait training to improve gait and cognition in elderly with mild cognitive impairment A randomized controlled trial. Dement Neuropsychol. 2020;14(2):118–27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Adam CE, Fitzpatrick AL, Leary CS, Hajat A, Phelan EA, Park C, Semmens EO: The association between gait speed and falls in community dwelling older adults with and without Mild Cognitive Impairment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021, 18(7).

  34. Coelho FG, Stella F, de Andrade LP, Barbieri FA, Santos-Galduroz RF, Gobbi S, Costa JL, Gobbi LT. Gait and risk of falls associated with frontal cognitive functions at different stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2012;19(5):644–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yogev-Seligmann G, Hausdorff JM, Giladi N. The role of executive function and attention in gait. Mov Disord. 2008;23(3):329–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Maclean LM, Brown LJE, Khadra H, Astell AJ. Observing prioritization effects on cognition and gait: The effect of increased cognitive load on cognitively healthy older adults’ dual-task performance. Gait Posture. 2017;53:139–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Szturm T, Maharjan P, Marotta JJ, Shay B, Shrestha S, Sakhalkar V. The interacting effect of cognitive and motor task demands on performance of gait, balance and cognition in young adults. Gait Posture. 2013;38(4):596–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Meng X, Yu H, Tham MP. Gait phase detection in able-bodied subjects and dementia patients. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:4907–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lin YC, Hsu WC, Wu CK, Chang WH, Wu KP, Wong AM. Comparison of motor performance of upper and lower extremities in dual-task tests in patients with mild Alzheimer’s dementia. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2016;28(3):491–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Muir SW, Speechley M, Wells J, Borrie M, Gopaul K, Montero-Odasso M. Gait assessment in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: the effect of dual-task challenges across the cognitive spectrum. Gait Posture. 2012;35(1):96–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Montero-Odasso M, Oteng-Amoako A, Speechley M, Gopaul K, Beauchet O, Annweiler C, Muir-Hunter SW. The motor signature of mild cognitive impairment: results from the gait and brain study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014;69(11):1415–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Montero-Odasso M: Gait as a biomarker of cognitive impairment and dementia syndromes. Quo vadis? Eur J Neurol 2016, 23(3):437–438.

  43. Beauchet O, Blumen HM, Callisaya ML, De Cock AM, Kressig RW, Srikanth V, Steinmetz JP, Verghese J, Allali G. Spatiotemporal gait characteristics associated with cognitive impairment: A multicenter cross-sectional study, the intercontinental “Gait, cognition & decline” initiative. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2018;15(3):273–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Boettcher LN, Hssayeni M, Rosenfeld A, Tolea MI, Galvin JE, Ghoraani B. Dual-task gait assessment and machine learning for early-detection of cognitive decline. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2020;2020:3204–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. de Oliveira SF, Ferreira JV, Placido J, Chagas D, Praxedes J, Guimaraes C, Batista LA, Laks J, Deslandes AC. Gait analysis with videogrammetry can differentiate healthy elderly, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer’s disease: A cross-sectional study. Exp Gerontol. 2020;131: 110816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ghoraani B, Boettcher LN, Hssayeni MD, Rosenfeld A, Tolea MI, Galvin JE: Detection of Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease using dual-task gait assessments and machine learning. Biomed Signal Process Control 2021, 64.

  47. Pieruccini-Faria F, Black SE, Masellis M, Smith EE, Almeida QJ, Li KZH, Bherer L, Camicioli R, Montero-Odasso M. Gait variability across neurodegenerative and cognitive disorders: Results from the Canadian Consortium of Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) and the Gait and Brain Study. Alzheimers Dement. 2021;17(8):1317–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, Dubois B, Feldman HH, Fox NC, Gamst A, Holtzman DM, Jagust WJ, Petersen RC, et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):270–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Davis DH, Creavin ST, Yip JL, Noel-Storr AH, Brayne C, Cullum S: Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015(10):CD010775.

  52. Pinto TCC, Santos MSP, Machado L, Bulgacov TM, Rodrigues-Junior AL, Silva GA, Costa MLG, Ximenes RCC, Sougey EB. Optimal cutoff scores for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in the Brazilian version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment among the elderly. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra. 2019;9(1):44–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Tan JP, Li N, Gao J, Wang LN, Zhao YM, Yu BC, Du W, Zhang WJ, Cui LQ, Wang QS, et al. Optimal cutoff scores for dementia and mild cognitive impairment of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment among elderly and oldest-old Chinese population. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;43(4):1403–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Holden MK, Gill KM, Magliozzi MR, Nathan J, Piehl-Baker L. Clinical gait assessment in the neurologically impaired. Reliability and meaningfulness Phys Ther. 1984;64(1):35–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee HH, Hong CT, Wu D, Chi WC, Yen CF, Liao HF, Chan L, Liou TH: Association between ambulatory status and functional disability in elderly people with dementia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019, 16(12).

  56. Aung N, Bovonsunthonchai S, Hiengkaew V, Tretriluxana J, Rojasavastera R, Pheung-Phrarattanatrai A. Concurrent validity and intratester reliability of the video-based system for measuring gait poststroke. Physiother Res Int. 2020;25(1): e1803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Bovonsunthonchai S, Witthiwej T, Ngamsombat C, Sathornsumetee S, Vachalathiti R, Muangpaisan W, Hengsomboon P, Thong-On S, Jankhum S, Yangyoo P. Effect of spinal tap test on the performance of sit-to-stand, walking, and turning in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2018;80(1):53–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Pheung-phrarattanatrai A, Bovonsunthonchai S, Heingkaew V, Prayoonwiwat N, Chotik-anuchit S. Improvement of gait symmetry in patients with stroke by motor imagery. J Med Assoc Thai. 2015;98(Suppl 5):S113-118.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bovonsunthonchai S, Vachalathiti R, Pisarnpong A, Khobhun F, Hiengkaew V. Spatiotemporal gait parameters for patients with Parkinson’s disease compared with normal individuals. Physiother Res Int. 2014;19(3):158–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Mandrekar JN. Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5(9):1315–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Cao Q, Tan CC, Xu W, Hu H, Cao XP, Dong Q, Tan L, Yu JT. The prevalence of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;73(3):1157–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Lenehan ME, Summers MJ, Saunders NL, Summers JJ, Vickers JC. Relationship between education and age-related cognitive decline: a review of recent research. Psychogeriatrics. 2015;15(2):154–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Turana Y, Tengkawan J, Chia YC, Hoshide S, Shin J, Chen CH, Buranakitjaroen P, Nailes J, Park S, Siddique S, et al. Hypertension and dementia: A comprehensive review from the HOPE Asia Network. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2019;21(8):1091–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bello-Chavolla OY, Antonio-Villa NE, Vargas-Vazquez A, Avila-Funes JA, Aguilar-Salinas CA. Pathophysiological mechanisms linking type 2 diabetes and dementia: Review of evidence from clinical, translational and epidemiological research. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2019;15(6):456–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Allali G, Kressig RW, Assal F, Herrmann FR, Dubost V, Beauchet O. Changes in gait while backward counting in demented older adults with frontal lobe dysfunction. Gait Posture. 2007;26(4):572–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Gillain S, Warzee E, Lekeu F, Wojtasik V, Maquet D, Croisier JL, Salmon E, Petermans J. The value of instrumental gait analysis in elderly healthy, MCI or Alzheimer’s disease subjects and a comparison with other clinical tests used in single and dual-task conditions. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2009;52(6):453–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Zhou H, Park C, Shahbazi M, York MK, Kunik ME, Naik AD, Najafi B: Digital biomarkers of cognitive frailty: The value of detailed gait assessment beyond gait speed. Gerontology 2021:1–10.

  68. Bahureksa L, Najafi B, Saleh A, Sabbagh M, Coon D, Mohler MJ, Schwenk M. The impact of mild cognitive impairment on gait and balance: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using instrumented assessment. Gerontology. 2017;63(1):67–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Chiaramonte R, Cioni M. Critical spatiotemporal gait parameters for individuals with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hong Kong Physiother J. 2021;41(1):1–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Allali G, Dubois B, Assal F, Lallart E, de Souza LC, Bertoux M, Annweiler C, Herrmann FR, Levy R, Beauchet O. Frontotemporal dementia: pathology of gait? Mov Disord. 2010;25(6):731–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Allali G, Annweiler C, Blumen HM, Callisaya ML, De Cock AM, Kressig RW, Srikanth V, Steinmetz JP, Verghese J, Beauchet O. Gait phenotype from mild cognitive impairment to moderate dementia: results from the GOOD initiative. Eur J Neurol. 2016;23(3):527–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Maquet D, Lekeu F, Warzee E, Gillain S, Wojtasik V, Salmon E, Petermans J, Croisier JL. Gait analysis in elderly adult patients with mild cognitive impairment and patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease: simple versus dual task: a preliminary report. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2010;30(1):51–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Kuan YC, Huang LK, Wang YH, Hu CJ, Tseng IJ, Chen HC, Lin LF. Balance and gait performance in older adults with early-stage cognitive impairment. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2021;57(4):560–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Gassner H, Marxreiter F, Steib S, Kohl Z, Schlachetzki JCM, Adler W, Eskofier BM, Pfeifer K, Winkler J, Klucken J. Gait and cognition in Parkinson’s Disease: Cognitive impairment is inadequately reflected by gait performance during dual task. Front Neurol. 2017;8:550.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Mc Ardle R, Del Din S, Galna B, Thomas A, Rochester L. Differentiating dementia disease subtypes with gait analysis: feasibility of wearable sensors? Gait Posture. 2020;76:372–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the Memory Clinic at Siriraj Hospital and all participants who kindly gave their time and effort to the study, and Ms. Rattapha Ariyaudomkit, Ms. Htet Htet Hnin, and Ms. Hataitip Boonchum for data collection. In addition, we would like to thank Associate Professor Jaranit Kaewkungwal for his great advice on statistical analysis.


This work was funded by Thailand Science Research and Innovation (TSRI), Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital and Faculty of Physical Therapy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



SB: conception and design of the study, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript drafting and revising, correspondence. RV: conception and design of the study, data analysis. VH: conception and design of the study, data analysis. MSB: manuscript drafting and revising. JR: manuscript drafting and revising. VS: conception and design of the study, data analysis, grant writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vorapun Senanarong.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board (SIRB), Human Research Protection Unit, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University (COA no: Si 779/2019). ​Participants were informed about the research objectives, benefits, and details and signed the informed consent approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board (SIRB), Human Research Protection Unit, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University before participating in the study (COA no: Si 779/219). The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bovonsunthonchai, S., Vachalathiti, R., Hiengkaew, V. et al. Quantitative gait analysis in mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and cognitively intact individuals: a cross-sectional case–control study. BMC Geriatr 22, 767 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Gait
  • Mild cognitive impairment
  • Dementia
  • Classification