An interventional study of Dual-task balance training in Multiple Sclerosis, sponsored by Universita di Verona. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in Italy. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 75 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-16.
Sponsored by Universita di Verona · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The goal of this randomized controlled feasibility study is to assess whether a balance training program that includes dual-task exercises is feasible in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). The study also aims to obtain preliminary data on the effects of the training on walking under dual-task conditions and on brain activity recorded with a wearable EEG. The main questions it aims to answer are:
Researchers will compare participants who receive the training with participants who receive no additional rehabilitation during the study period.
Participants will:
BACKGROUND People with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) often show reduced walking and balance performance when they perform a cognitive task at the same time (dual-task, DT). The neural basis of this motor-cognitive interaction is still unclear, and there is little evidence on how rehabilitation affects its behavioral and neural correlates. Recent meta-analytic data suggest that balance training including DT exercises can improve cognitive functions in PwMS.
DESIGN This is a single-center, randomized, controlled, feasibility study. Thirty PwMS, recruited mainly among participants of a previous cross-sectional phase of the same project, are randomly allocated 1:1 to the intervention group or to a no-treatment control group. The allocation sequence is computer-generated with permuted blocks of 6 by a team member not involved in recruitment or assessment, and is concealed until the baseline (T0) assessment is completed. The sample size (15 per group) is in line with recommendations for pilot and feasibility studies and is not based on a formal power calculation.
INTERVENTION The intervention group receives 14 in-hospital sessions (60 min, 2 sessions/week, about 7 weeks) at the Neurorehabilitation Unit of AOUI Verona. Each session includes warm-up (5 min), static balance exercises (15 min), dynamic balance exercises (15 min), dual-task training combining dynamic balance exercises with cognitive tasks (20 min), and cool-down (5 min).
The allocation sequence will be computer-generated before the start of the enrollment, using permuted-block of 6.
Experimental details - Rehabilitation protocol (intervention group):
i) Warm-up (5 min): joint mobilization and gentle stretching of trunk and lower limb muscles; ii) Main training block (50 min); iii) Cool-down (5 min): slow walking and breathing exercises.
1.1. Main Training Block
The main 50-minute training block will be structured as follows (with moderate flexibility in terms of phase duration according to each participant's performance and fatigue):
Exercises are designed to target different resources required for balance postural stability - according to Horak's framework - that are relevant in the context of Multiple Sclerosis.
Static Balance Exercises (15 min)
Static balance exercises will be performed in standing position or will include postural transition tasks (e.g. sit-to stand), and will target limits of stability, anticipatory postural adjustments and multisensory integration. Exercises in static standing will require the participant to maintain the standing posture and balance with progressively challenging constraints regarding a) the base of support, b) sensory input, and c) concurrent upper limb movements.
Complexity progression will be performed manipulating these three elements as follows (according to participant's functional level):
Sensory information: different combinations of visual, somatosensory, and vestibular information manipulation will be explored. Progression will be performed within each sensory modality as follows:
Progression criterion: three consecutive repetitions performed successfully (i.e. without the need to reach for support or change the base of support) will be needed to progress to the next difficulty level. The target duration of each condition will be 30 s.
Progression modality: first, each intervention factor (base of support, sensory information, and concurrent upper limb movement) will be manipulated individually, to identify the appropriate level of difficulty. Then, different combinations will be performed (e.g. standing with narrow symmetrical base of support, on a firm surface, with eyes closed and bilateral arm raising), adapting the difficulty level of each factor to the participant's functional level and following the same criterion for difficulty progression.
Sit-to-stand will then be performed. Progression will be based on the height of the chair (standard → low), the use of armrests (yes → no), and simultaneous upper limb raising (no → yes).
Dynamic Balance Exercises (15 min)
Dynamic balance exercises will target the modification of the base of support, walking in different directions, and multisensory integration during locomotion, and will include march in place, walking in different directions, obstacles courses and stair climbing and descending. Conditions involving walking with eyes closed will be performed in close proximity to the therapist and with parallel bars available if needed.
The following progressions will be followed:
Walking direction: forward straight walking → slalom walking → sideways walking
→ backward walking;
Progression modality: similarly to the static exercises block, first, each intervention factor (base of support, walking direction, obstacle height, and sensory information) will be manipulated individually, to identify the appropriate level of difficulty. Then, different combinations will be performed (e.g. walking in slalom with narrow symmetrical base of support, on a compliant surface, with eyes open), adapting the difficulty level of each factor to the participant's functional level and following the criterion for difficulty progression.
Progression modality: like in the previous two blocks, first, each intervention factor (base of support, walking direction, obstacle height, and sensory information) will be manipulated individually. Then, different combinations will be performed, adapting the difficulty level of each factor to the participant's functional level and following the criterion for difficulty progression.
ASSESSMENT (T0 and T1) A comprehensive clinical, functional, cognitive functions, quality of life assessment will be carried out includin: Motricity Index, Dynamic Gait Index, Mini Best Test, Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Fatigue Severity Scale, Activities-specific balance confidence (ABC), the Manual Ability Measure-36 (MAM-36), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Multiple Sclerosis Quality Of Life-54, Five Levels EQ-5D, Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT), number of falls in the last month.assessment batter
Participants will also perform a DT paradigm with six conditions in random order: single-task TUG (5 trials), single-task 2MWT, single-task backward digit span (2-minute version and 5 x 15-s version), DT-TUG, and DT-2MWT.
Cortical activity is recorded with an 8-channel gel-free wearable EEG headset (Mindtooth Touch, prefrontal and parietal channels) and gait with three inertial measurement units (Movella DOT, lower back and shanks). NASA-TLX and a fatigue numeric rating scale are collected after each condition. Clinical scales are administered by an assessor blinded to group allocation. Participants who interrupt the training for more than one week, or who have a relapse between T0 and T1, are withdrawn.
OUTCOME MEASURES Primary endpoints (feasibility)
Expected outcomes
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. Feasibility outcomes (primary outcomes) are reported descriptively as counts, proportions or means with 95% confidence intervals. Secondary outcomes are analyzed as exploratory, with no formal hypothesis testing of efficacy. Dual-task costs are computed as the normalized performance decrement in DT compared to single-task (ST). EEG features include theta and alpha band power spectral densities and the Task Load Index (frontal theta / parietal alpha). Within-group changes from T0 to T1 are tested with paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test according to data distribution. Between-group differences at T1 are estimated with repeated measure ANOVA with "group" effect and reported as adjusted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. When ANOVA assumptions are not met, a rank-based alternative is used. Standardized effect sizes are calculated to inform the sample size of a future randomized controlled trial. Analyses follow the intention-to-treat principle, including all randomized participants with available data.
3,524 studies on the registry are indexed under Multiple Sclerosis; 668 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 30 is below the median of 50 across 2,386 interventional studies indexed under Multiple Sclerosis.
Browse Multiple Sclerosis studies →Universita di Verona is the lead sponsor of 125 studies on the registry; 27 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
14 in-hospital sessions of balance training with dual-task exercises (60 min per session, 2 sessions per week, about 7 weeks).
Behavioral: Dual-task balance training
No additional rehabilitation during the study period (about 7 weeks). Participants continue their usual medical and rehabilitation care but do not start new rehabilitation programs until the final assessment (T1).
Each 60-min session includes warm-up (5 min), static balance exercises (15 min), dynamic balance exercises (15 min), dual-task training combining dynamic balance exercises with cognitive tasks (20 min), and cool-down (5 min). Exercise difficulty progresses by manipulating base of support, visual, somatosensory and vestibular input, concurrent upper-limb movements, walking direction, and obstacle height. Progression requires three consecutive successful repetitions. Cognitive tasks include serial subtraction by 3 and 7, alternate alphabet recitation, and verbal fluency, with difficulty set to keep about 70% correct responses. The training is tailored to each participant's functional level.
Retention rate
Percentage of randomized participants who complete the T1 assessment.
Time frame: Week 7 after baseline
Adherence to the training
Number of training sessions completed out of 14 (intervention group only).
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Assessment burden
Time (minutes) needed to complete the assessment session.
Time frame: Baseline and week 7 after baseline
Change in timed up and go dual-task cost
Dual-task cost (%) = (DT time - ST time) / ST time × 100. Higher values indicate greater interference
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in 2 minutes walking test dual-task cost
Dual-task cost (%) = (ST distance - DT distance) / ST distance × 100. Higher values indicate greater interference.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in cognitive dual-task cost
Change in backward digit span accuracy in DT compared to ST conditions (%).
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in EEG Task Load Index
Ratio between frontal midline theta power and parietal alpha power (dimensionless), during Timed Up and Go and during 2 minutes walking test in single and dual-task conditions.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in prefrontal EEG theta power
EEG power spectral density in the theta band (µV²/Hz), averaged across prefrontal channels (AFz, AF3, AF4, AF7, AF8). Reported separately for single-task and dual-task TUG and 2MWT.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in perceived workload
NASA Task Load Index (0-100, higher = greater workload) after each experimental condition.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in perceived fatigue
Numeric rating scale (1-10, greater values=greater fatigue) after each experimental condition.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Patient Global Impression of Change
Participant-rated global change on a 7-point scale (1 = very much improved, 7 = very much worse).
Time frame: At the end of the intervention phase (week 7 after baseline)
Change in MSWS-12
Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12, 0-100, higher = greater walking limitation.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Mini-BESTest
0-28, higher = better balance.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Dynamic Gait Index
0-24, higher = better dynamic balance during gait.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Motricity Index (lower limb)
0-100, higher = better strength.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite
Composite z-score obtained by averaging the z-scores of the Timed 25-Foot Walk (inverted), the reciprocal of the 9-Hole Peg Test and the PASAT-3, calculated relative to the National MS Society Task Force reference population. Higher = better.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale
0-100%, higher = greater balance confidence.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Fatigue Severity Scale
Mean score 1-7, higher = greater fatigue.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Manual Ability Measure-36
Self-reported manual ability, higher = better.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Brief Pain Inventory (intensity + interference)
0-110, higher = worse pain.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Multiple Sclerosis Quality Of Life-54 (physical and mental)
0-100, higher = better physical quality of life.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in EQ-5D-5L (EuroQoL)
higher = better health.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Number of falls
self reported number of falls in the previous month
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in gait speed
IMU-based gait speed (m/s) during the 2MWT, reported separately for single-task and dual-task conditions.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in cadence
IMU-based cadence (steps/min) during the 2MWT, reported separately for single-task and dual-task conditions.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in stride regularity
IMU-based stride regularity (autocorrelation coefficient, dimensionless, 0-1, higher = more regular) during the 2MWT, reported separately for single-task and dual-task conditions.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in gait instability
IMU-based gait instability during the 2MWT, reported separately for single-task and dual-task conditions.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in gait asymmetry
IMU-based gait asymmetry during the 2MWT, reported separately for single-task and dual-task conditions.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in dual-task cost of gait speed
Dual-task cost (%) = (DT - ST) / ST × 100 of IMU-based gait speed during the 2MWT. Negative values indicate slower walking under dual-task.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in dual-task cost of cadence
Dual-task cost (%) = (DT - ST) / ST × 100 of IMU-based cadence during the 2MWT. Negative values indicate lower cadence under dual-task.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in dual-task cost of stride regularity
Dual-task cost (%) = (DT - ST) / ST × 100 of IMU-based stride regularity during the 2MWT. Negative values indicate less regular gait under dual-task.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in dual-task cost of gait instability
Dual-task cost (%) = (DT - ST) / ST × 100 of IMU-based gait instability during the 2MWT. Positive values indicate greater instability under dual-task.
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in dual-task cost of gait asymmetry
Dual-task cost (%) = (DT - ST) / ST × 100 of IMU-based gait asymmetry during the 2MWT. Positive values indicate greater asymmetry under dual-task
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Plan to share: Undecided
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Oct 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.