Multiple SclerosisDTBinMSNCT07878702
Dual-Task Balance Training in People With Multiple Sclerosis: a Randomized Feasibility Study
A study testing Dual-task balance training in people with Multiple Sclerosis, run by Universita di Verona at 1 site in Italy.
Trial summary
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). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 75 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Multiple Sclerosis
- What is being tested?
- Dual-task balance training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteItaly
- Study dates
- 15 Oct 2026to 30 Sep 2029
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 75 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age 18 to 75 years
- Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (relapsing-remitting, primary progressive or secondary progressive)
- Timed Up and Go test > 8.4 s
- Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score < 7
- Able to walk independently for 2 minutes
- Written informed consent
Who cannot join
- Other conditions that may affect motor function
- Cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination score < 24)
- Severe visual deficits
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Silvia Francesca Storti, PhD contact
Italy1 site
Policlinico GB Rossi - University Hospital Borgo Roma
Verona, Verona, 37134
Marialuisa Gandolfi, PhD, MD, +39 0458124573, marialuisa.gandolfi@univr.it
About this study
Official title: Neural Correlates of Motor-cognitive Interaction During Walking in People With Multiple Sclerosis: a Cross-sectional and a Feasibility Study of a Dual-task Rehabilitation Intervention
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:
- Is the training feasible in terms of recruitment, retention, adherence, data completeness, and assessment burden?
- What are the preliminary effects of the training on dual-task costs during the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and the 2-Minute Walk Test (2MWT), on prefrontal activation and mental workload during walking, and on clinical outcomes?
Read more
Researchers will compare participants who receive the training with participants who receive no additional rehabilitation during the study period.
Participants will:
- receive 14 in-hospital sessions of balance and dual-task training (60 minutes, 2 sessions per week, about 7 weeks) if allocated to the intervention group, or no new rehabilitation if allocated to the control group;
- perform a dual-task walking assessment (TUG, 2MWT, backward digit span) while wearing an 8-channel wearable EEG headset and 3 inertial sensors, before (T0) and after (T1) the study period;
- complete clinical scales and questionnaires on balance, gait, cognition, fatigue, mood, pain, and quality of life.
Read the detailed description
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):
- 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):
- Static balance exercises (15 min)
- Dynamic balance exercises (15 min)
- Dual-task training: dynamic balance exercises + cognitive tasks (20 min)
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):
- Base of support: wide symmetrical → narrow symmetrical → tandem → single-limb stance.
- Sensory information: different combinations of visual, somatosensory, and vestibular information manipulation will be explored. Progression will be performed within each sensory modality as follows:
- Visual input: eyes open → eyes closed;
- Somatosensory input: standing on a firm surface → standing on a compliant surface;
- Vestibular input: head movement: no → yes. First, each sensory modality will be manipulated individually; then different combinations will be explored according to each participant's functional level.
- Concurrent upper limb movements: bilateral arm raising → forward and lateral reaching → ball handling. 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:
- Base of support (during walking): standard → narrow → tandem;
- Walking direction: forward straight walking → slalom walking → sideways walking → backward walking;
- Obstacle height: progressively increased;
- Sensory information: the same progression described for static balance exercises will be applied to dynamic exercises (when feasible and safe). Progression criterion: performance of three consecutive repetitions without the need to reach for support to maintain the balance. 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.
- Dual-Task Training (20 min) Dual-task training will include the simultaneous performance of a motor and a cognitive task. Motor tasks will be the same as those used in the dynamic balance block, with progression adjustment according to the dual-task performance. The cognitive task will include serial subtraction of 3s and 7s, reciting alternate alphabet letters, fluency exercises (e.g. naming all animals/cities whose names start with a given letter), and will be varied within each session. The digit span will not be included, as it is reserved as an outcome measure. Difficulty will be set aiming to maintain performance in the cognitive task approximately to 70% rate of correct responses during dual-task conditions. Difficulty progression will follow the same levels described in the dynamic exercises. Progression criterion: performance of three consecutive repetitions without the need to reach for support to maintain the balance and with a minimum of 70% rate of correct responses.
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)
- Process metrics: recruitment rate, retention rate, session adherence (sessions completed out of 14).
- Resource/management metrics: assessment burden (time per session), protocol compliance, data completeness.
- Scientific feasibility: ability of the selected outcome measures to detect change, to inform sample size of a future trial.
- Patient-reported: Global Impression of Change, ABC scale, MSWS-12. Secondary endpoints (preliminary effect)
- Change (T0→T1) in motor DT costs for TUG and 2MWT, compared between intervention and no-treatment group.
- Change in IMU-based gait kinematic parameters.
- Change in EEG-based prefrontal activation and TLI during the ST motor conditions.
- Change in Clinical, functional, cognitive functions, quality of life outcomes: 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.
Expected outcomes
- The protocol will prove feasible in terms of recruitment, retention and adherence.
- The intervention group will show reduced prefrontal activation and mental workload (TLI) during TUG and 2MWT in the single-task condition.
- Reduced DT cost, expected primarily for TUG (and less for 2MWT, since endurance is not specifically targeted by the training).
- Preliminary effect-size estimates to power a future randomized controlled trial.
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.
- Conditions
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Being tested
- Dual-task balance training
- Keywords
- dual-task, cognitive-motor interference, balance training, electroencephalography, wearable sensors, gait analysis, mental workload, feasibility study
- Medical subject headings
- Multiple Sclerosis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Dual-task balance trainingBehavioural
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental Arm | Experimental | 14 in-hospital sessions of balance training with dual-task exercises (60 min per session, 2 sessions per week, about 7 weeks). Receives: Behavioral: Dual-task balance training |
| No-intervention Arm | No intervention | 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). |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Retention rate
Percentage of randomized participants who complete the T1 assessment.
Measured: Week 7 after baseline
Adherence to the training
Number of training sessions completed out of 14 (intervention group only).
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Secondary outcomes (31)
Assessment burden
Time (minutes) needed to complete the assessment session.
Measured: 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
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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 (%).
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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).
Measured: 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.
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Mini-BESTest
0-28, higher = better balance.
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Dynamic Gait Index
0-24, higher = better dynamic balance during gait.
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Motricity Index (lower limb)
0-100, higher = better strength.
Measured: 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.
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale
0-100%, higher = greater balance confidence.
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Fatigue Severity Scale
Mean score 1-7, higher = greater fatigue.
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Manual Ability Measure-36
Self-reported manual ability, higher = better.
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Brief Pain Inventory (intensity + interference)
0-110, higher = worse pain.
Measured: 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.
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in EQ-5D-5L (EuroQoL)
higher = better health.
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Number of falls
self reported number of falls in the previous month
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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
Measured: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Oct 2026
- Study start15 Oct 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion31 Jul 2029 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Sep 2029 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Multiple SclerosisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Universita di Verona
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Nicola Valè, Universita di Verona
- Investigators
- Nicola Valè, PhD, Principal investigator, Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine, University of Verona
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07878702
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2025_BS_004
- Other IDs
- 2025_BS_004
- Acronym
- DTBinMS
- Status last verified
- Oct 2026
- First submitted
- 5 Oct 2026
- Last updated
- 16 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Neural Correlates of Motor-cognitive Interaction During Walking in People With Multiple Sclerosis: a Cross-sectional and a Feasibility Study of a Dual-task Rehabilitation Intervention
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07878702
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- DTBinMS / 2025_BS_004
- Conditions
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Keywords
- dual-task, cognitive-motor interference, balance training, electroencephalography, wearable sensors, gait analysis, mental workload, feasibility study
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Universita di VeronaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla
- Study start
- 15 Oct 2026 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 31 Jul 2029 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Sep 2029 (estimated)
- First posted
- 16 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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:
- Is the training feasible in terms of recruitment, retention, adherence, data completeness, and assessment burden?
- What are the preliminary effects of the training on dual-task costs during the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and the 2-Minute Walk Test (2MWT), on prefrontal activation and mental workload during walking, and on clinical outcomes?
Researchers will compare participants who receive the training with participants who receive no additional rehabilitation during the study period.
Participants will:
- receive 14 in-hospital sessions of balance and dual-task training (60 minutes, 2 sessions per week, about 7 weeks) if allocated to the intervention group, or no new rehabilitation if allocated to the control group;
- perform a dual-task walking assessment (TUG, 2MWT, backward digit span) while wearing an 8-channel wearable EEG headset and 3 inertial sensors, before (T0) and after (T1) the study period;
- complete clinical scales and questionnaires on balance, gait, cognition, fatigue, mood, pain, and quality of life.
Detailed description
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):
- 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):
- Static balance exercises (15 min)
- Dynamic balance exercises (15 min)
- Dual-task training: dynamic balance exercises + cognitive tasks (20 min)
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):
- Base of support: wide symmetrical → narrow symmetrical → tandem → single-limb stance.
- Sensory information: different combinations of visual, somatosensory, and vestibular information manipulation will be explored. Progression will be performed within each sensory modality as follows:
- Visual input: eyes open → eyes closed;
- Somatosensory input: standing on a firm surface → standing on a compliant surface;
- Vestibular input: head movement: no → yes. First, each sensory modality will be manipulated individually; then different combinations will be explored according to each participant's functional level.
- Concurrent upper limb movements: bilateral arm raising → forward and lateral reaching → ball handling. 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:
- Base of support (during walking): standard → narrow → tandem;
- Walking direction: forward straight walking → slalom walking → sideways walking → backward walking;
- Obstacle height: progressively increased;
- Sensory information: the same progression described for static balance exercises will be applied to dynamic exercises (when feasible and safe). Progression criterion: performance of three consecutive repetitions without the need to reach for support to maintain the balance. 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.
- Dual-Task Training (20 min) Dual-task training will include the simultaneous performance of a motor and a cognitive task. Motor tasks will be the same as those used in the dynamic balance block, with progression adjustment according to the dual-task performance. The cognitive task will include serial subtraction of 3s and 7s, reciting alternate alphabet letters, fluency exercises (e.g. naming all animals/cities whose names start with a given letter), and will be varied within each session. The digit span will not be included, as it is reserved as an outcome measure. Difficulty will be set aiming to maintain performance in the cognitive task approximately to 70% rate of correct responses during dual-task conditions. Difficulty progression will follow the same levels described in the dynamic exercises. Progression criterion: performance of three consecutive repetitions without the need to reach for support to maintain the balance and with a minimum of 70% rate of correct responses.
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)
- Process metrics: recruitment rate, retention rate, session adherence (sessions completed out of 14).
- Resource/management metrics: assessment burden (time per session), protocol compliance, data completeness.
- Scientific feasibility: ability of the selected outcome measures to detect change, to inform sample size of a future trial.
- Patient-reported: Global Impression of Change, ABC scale, MSWS-12. Secondary endpoints (preliminary effect)
- Change (T0→T1) in motor DT costs for TUG and 2MWT, compared between intervention and no-treatment group.
- Change in IMU-based gait kinematic parameters.
- Change in EEG-based prefrontal activation and TLI during the ST motor conditions.
- Change in Clinical, functional, cognitive functions, quality of life outcomes: 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.
Expected outcomes
- The protocol will prove feasible in terms of recruitment, retention and adherence.
- The intervention group will show reduced prefrontal activation and mental workload (TLI) during TUG and 2MWT in the single-task condition.
- Reduced DT cost, expected primarily for TUG (and less for 2MWT, since endurance is not specifically targeted by the training).
- Preliminary effect-size estimates to power a future randomized controlled trial.
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Experimental Arm | Experimental | Behavioral: Dual-task balance training14 in-hospital sessions of balance training with dual-task exercises (60 min per session, 2 sessions per week, about 7 weeks). |
| No-intervention Arm | No intervention | –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). |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Age 18 to 75 years
- Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (relapsing-remitting, primary progressive or secondary progressive)
- Timed Up and Go test > 8.4 s
- Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score < 7
- Able to walk independently for 2 minutes
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Other conditions that may affect motor function
- Cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination score < 24)
- Severe visual deficits
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Dual-task balance trainingEach 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. | Behavioural | Experimental Arm |
Primary outcome
Retention rate
Time frame: Week 7 after baseline
Percentage of randomized participants who complete the T1 assessment.
Adherence to the training
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Number of training sessions completed out of 14 (intervention group only).
31 secondary outcomes
Assessment burden
Time frame: Baseline and week 7 after baseline
Change in timed up and go dual-task cost
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in 2 minutes walking test dual-task cost
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in cognitive dual-task cost
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in EEG Task Load Index
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in prefrontal EEG theta power
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in perceived workload
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in perceived fatigue
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Patient Global Impression of Change
Time frame: At the end of the intervention phase (week 7 after baseline)
Change in MSWS-12
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Mini-BESTest
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Dynamic Gait Index
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Motricity Index (lower limb)
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Fatigue Severity Scale
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Manual Ability Measure-36
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Brief Pain Inventory (intensity + interference)
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in Multiple Sclerosis Quality Of Life-54 (physical and mental)
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in EQ-5D-5L (EuroQoL)
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Number of falls
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in gait speed
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in cadence
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in stride regularity
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in gait instability
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in gait asymmetry
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in dual-task cost of gait speed
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in dual-task cost of cadence
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in dual-task cost of stride regularity
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in dual-task cost of gait instability
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Change in dual-task cost of gait asymmetry
Time frame: From baseline to the end of intervention phase (7 weeks)
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Oct 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Multiple Sclerosis
RecruitingPhase 3
Efficacy and Safety of Remibrutinib After Switching From Ocrelizumab in Participants Living With Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.
Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis
Active, not recruitingObservational study
A Study to Evaluate Long-Term Safety of Vumerity and Tecfidera in Participants With Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Multiple Sclerosis
RecruitingObservational study
Study of Skin Tumors in Tuberous Sclerosis
Tuberous Sclerosis
Recruiting
The Effects of Synchronous and Asynchronous Pilates Training Based on Telerehabilitation on Core Stabilization, Balance, Cognitive Functions, and Quality of Life in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial
Multiple Sclerosis
RecruitingObservational study
Care in Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Multiple Sclerosis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Silvia Francesca Storti, PhD contact
Nicola Valè, PhD principal investigator
Department of Engineering for Innovation Medicine, University of Verona
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Dual-task balance training in people with Multiple Sclerosis, run by Universita di Verona at 1 site in Italy.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Nicola Valè, PhD (+39 3466211255, nicola.vale@univr.it), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Retention rate (time frame: Week 7 after baseline). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Oct 2026.