Exam Study Notes

Results

Average Efficiency (TP) and T-Tests

Standing Condition

A significant difference in TP scores between sexes was observed ($p = 0.039$), with males exhibiting higher TP scores, indicating greater efficiency in the standing condition.

Marching Condition

The sex difference in TP was not statistically significant ($p = 0.128$). This suggests that cognitive load (marching) reduced performance differences between sexes, minimizing the performance gap observed during standing.

Average Efficiency by Sex and Condition

Average efficiency for both sexes in standing and marching conditions is represented graphically. Female average TP (standing) was $4.793$, while male average TP (standing) was $4.953$. For marching, female average TP was $4.626$, and male average TP was $4.691$. The female line being lower in both conditions suggests females performed slightly better on average. Only the standing condition showed a statistically significant difference in TP ($p = 0.039$).

Independent T-Test Results: Speed by Sex

Standing Condition

No significant difference in movement time (MT) was found between males and females ($p = 0.472$). Female MT was $531$ ms, and male MT was $567$ ms. Females had a faster average movement time (531 ms) than males (567 ms).

Marching Condition

No significant difference in movement time (MT) was observed between males and females ($p = 0.971$). Female MT was $541$ ms, and male MT was $541$ ms. Movement times were nearly identical for females (541 ms) and males (541 ms).

Conclusion

Sex does not appear to impact movement time performance in either condition under cognitive load.

Paired T-Test: Standing vs. Marching

Movement Time (MT)

No significant difference in MT between standing and marching conditions was found ($p = 0.87$). Standing Mean was $0.545$, and Marching Mean was $0.541$. Standing Variance was $0.021$, and Marching Variance was $0.008$. Participants maintained similar movement times in both conditions, contrary to the expectation that marching would slow them down. MT was less variable during marching, suggesting more consistency in performance. Pearson Correlation was $0.705$.

Throughput (TP)

TP was lower during marching. A one-tailed test showed a significant difference ($p = 0.032$), indicating efficiency dropped under cognitive load. Standing Mean was $4.855$, and Marching Mean was $4.651$. Standing Variance was $0.359$, and Marching Variance was $0.491$. Pearson Correlation was $0.786$. Participants were less accurate or made more trade-offs to maintain speed while marching, even though movement time didn't change. TP variance was higher during marching, indicating greater inconsistency in performance.

Overall Conclusion

While sex impacts throughput (TP) in a standing condition, this difference is not significant under cognitive load when marching. Movement time (MT) shows no significant sex differences in either condition. Dual-tasking affects motor control quality (TP) more than speed (MT), with a significant reduction in TP during marching ($p = 0.032$).

Discussion

The results indicate that while sex has a statistically significant impact on throughput (TP) in a standing condition, this difference is not significant when a cognitive load is introduced through marching. This suggests that the cognitive demands of marching may reduce the performance differences typically observed between sexes in simpler motor tasks. The average TP values further support this, with males showing slightly higher efficiency in the standing condition, but the difference diminishes during marching.

Movement time (MT) analysis revealed no significant differences between males and females in either standing or marching conditions. This suggests that sex does not play a significant role in the speed of movement, regardless of cognitive load. Furthermore, the paired t-test results showed no significant difference in MT between the standing and marching conditions, indicating that participants maintained similar movement speeds even when multitasking. However, MT was less variable during marching, suggesting a more consistent performance under cognitive load.

Throughput (TP), on the other hand, was significantly affected by the dual-tasking condition. TP was lower during marching, as confirmed by a one-tailed test ($p = 0.032$), indicating that cognitive load reduces motor control efficiency. This suggests that participants were less accurate or made more trade-offs to maintain speed while marching. The higher TP variance during marching further supports this, indicating greater inconsistency in performance. Overall, these findings highlight that dual-tasking primarily affects the quality of motor control (TP) rather than speed (MT). The significant reduction in TP during marching underscores the impact of cognitive load on motor task performance.