Darbe Schlosser, MA
Founder, Think & Move Well
Representative Composite Case. This example combines recurring coaching observations from multiple de-identified coaching sessions. It is intended to illustrate common coaching patterns and is not the story of one individual.
This case follows the teaching of one method across two de-identified clients and seven coaching sessions spanning roughly five months, with supporting observations from three further clients. Between them, the sessions involve all three coaches in the practice.
It exists to answer one question: is this a method, or is it one coach's improvisation? A teaching structure that appears in a single coach's sessions proves very little. A recognizable teaching structure carried across coaches and clients supports interpreting this as a teachable method rather than one coach's improvisation.
This case reports no outcomes. No symptom was measured, no instrument was administered, no comparison was made. Nothing below should be read as evidence that any client improved, or that the method caused any change. Client speech is paraphrased throughout; the underlying sessions have not individually completed de-identification review, so no client is quoted directly.
The two clients
C108: digit work appears in all 19 sessions in this corpus; 4 are read in depth here. August 2025 to January 2026. Coaches: Darbe and Coach D.
C186: digit work appears in 20 of 21 sessions; 3 are read in depth here. October 2025 to January 2026. Coaches: Darbe and Coach M.
In C108's early session the coach lays out the program's shape before any of it happens, including that the system-building work begins around the fifth session (tmw-0306, t=27:39). Two things are worth noting.
First, the shape of the work is stated in advance, not left to emerge. The coach describes what is coming rather than improvising it session by session. That is part of what makes the method teachable and transmissible between coaches. It is not a claim that the demands arrive in a fixed order; they do not.
Second, the same session frames the work as problem-solving and regaining control under interference, rather than as exercise with a memory game attached. The framing precedes the content.
Observed in: C186 (tmw-0653, tmw-0899)
Recall here is shared and supported rather than unaided. The digits structure the session.
In an October session, a stretch routine is run with digits marking its segments. Coach and client recite the values together, with the coach timing his delivery to the movement, and the sequence rather than a rep count defines where the routine goes next (tmw-0653, t=05:35). In a December session with a different coach, the structure is stated as a rule at the outset: a short set of movements with a stable anchor recurring within it, each movement's extent defined by a count of digits rather than repetitions (tmw-0899, t=07:04). The client then works through the set counting aloud while the coach checks movement quality in parallel, asking, for instance, whether both legs are bending equally while the count continues (tmw-0899, t=18:21).
What the coach is doing: making the digit sequence, not a repetition target, the unit of work.
Where people stall: the count and the movement compete immediately. Under this demand the count usually wins and the movement quality drifts, which is why the coach's attention sits on the body while the client's sits on the numbers.
Observed in: C108 (tmw-0502), C186 (tmw-0899)
This is the central demand examined here. The client internally retrieves the sequence and recites it while moving; the level and form of coach support varies.
In a September session, C108 recites a long run of the sequence while working through a movement, with the coach interrupting to correct a wrong digit and then to restart the run (tmw-0502, t=20:12). The coach also holds a movement-quality rule in place at the same time, requiring a full reset between repetitions rather than allowing the client to work between two half positions.
What the coach is doing: holding two error channels open at once (sequence accuracy and movement quality), correcting whichever one fails.
Where people stall: this is where the interference the literature describes becomes visible in a coaching session. Sessions show the failure point moving: sometimes the digits hold and the movement degrades, sometimes the movement holds and the sequence stalls or repeats. The recurring coaching observation across the practice is that chunk transitions are the reliable breaking point: the moment of moving from one memorized group to the next, because the sequence has to be reorganized rather than continued (tmw-0163, t=12:10, a third client).
Observed in: C108 (tmw-0769, tmw-1017)
This is the demand that separates the method from dual-tasking as usually understood. The sequence stops being something recited alongside the movement and becomes the thing that selects it.
In a November session, the coach sets a short working sequence and a numerical threshold rule: digits below the threshold call for one movement, digits at or above it call for another. The client reads each digit in turn and performs the corresponding movement, with the coach confirming the rule at each step until the client begins running ahead of the coach's prompts (tmw-0769, t=08:11).
In a January session two months later, a second overlay is introduced: a parity-based rule determines which side performs the movement. The coaching rationale recorded here is the most revealing line in the case. The coach explains a preference for not leaving the choice of leg open, describing the dislike of having a free decision available and the preference for a rule governing it instead (tmw-1017, t=09:52).
What the coach is doing: converting an open motor choice into a rule-governed one, so the cognitive demand is structured rather than arbitrary.
Where people stall: the client must hold the sequence, apply the rule, and execute. The rule application is what lapses first. Clients commonly revert to performing the movement they last performed rather than the one the current digit specifies.
Honest limitation: in this selected evidence set, number-governed selection is documented in one client only. The practice-wide prevalence figures indicate the demand is not unique to that client, but this case does not independently demonstrate that.
Observed in: C186 (tmw-1022), with supporting observation from C063 (tmw-0349) and C044 (tmw-0166)
Once the chunks are stable, they are attacked on purpose.
One form is deliberate restructuring of chunk boundaries: regrouping the sequence against its memorized chunking so that it has to be reorganized in the moment rather than replayed. The coach describes this explicitly as the introduction to disrupting the sequence, and connects the ability to disrupt it to how many different ways the workout can subsequently be varied (tmw-0349, t=10:45).
A second form separates rhythm from sequence: the movement holds a steady tempo while the rhythm of recitation is deliberately displaced against it (tmw-1022, t=21:22). Earlier in the same session the client is moving between chunks and coordinating them with a cross-body movement, connecting each group to the next transition (tmw-1022, t=19:09).
A third form pairs disruption with a longer coordination sequence built around a movement the coach associates with backward stepping and foot-placement accuracy (tmw-0166, t=59:12).
What the coach is doing: removing the possibility of running the sequence automatically, so that it has to be operated on rather than replayed.
Where people stall: everywhere, by design. This is where the method's premise, that a manipulable sequence differs from a memorized one, is either demonstrated or exposed.
falls, or quality of life, at any timepoint.
The practice's records say very little about people for whom this format did not suit.
Think & Move Well provides movement coaching and education. It does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Nothing here is a recommendation to start, stop or change any medication, therapy or treatment. Parkinson's disease varies widely between individuals; consult your neurologist, movement disorder specialist or physical therapist before changing what you do. Training under cognitive load can increase the difficulty of walking and balance tasks in the moment, and should be introduced gradually and with appropriate supervision.
Corrections policy. We correct errors. If you find one in this article, including in how we have represented any cited study, email darbeschlosser@motorvationusa.com with the section and what is wrong. We will review it, correct the page if the error is confirmed, and add a dated note recording what changed.