4.5 Article

Older adults prioritize postural stability in the anterior-posterior direction to regain balance following volitional lateral step

期刊

GAIT & POSTURE
卷 41, 期 2, 页码 666-669

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.01.021

关键词

Aging; Postural balance; Falls; Lateral step; Postural strategies

资金

  1. Research Development Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa [128113, 127972]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Postural control in the medial-lateral (ML) direction is of particular interest regarding the assessment of changes in postural control, as it is highly related to the risk of falling. Objective: To determine the postural strategies used to regain balance following a voluntary lateral step and compare these strategies between young and older adults. Methods: Sixteen older adults (60-90 years) and 14 young adults (20-40 years) were asked to stand quietly for 30 s, walk in place and then take a lateral step and stand quietly (30 s). Balance Post was divided into 10 s intervals. Center of pressure displacement (CoP) and velocity (VCoP) in the anterioposterior (AP) and ML directions were analyzed. Results: In both groups, CoP and VCoP in AP and ML increased in Post1 compared to Pre (P < 0.001). Dissimilar to young adults, VCoP-Post2, Post3 ML were larger than Pre (P = 0.01) in older adults. Age correlated with all VCoP (Pre and Post) in both ML (P < 0.05) and AP directions (P < 0.01). Conclusions: Dissimilar to young adults, older adults use different postural strategies in ML and AP directions and prioritized postural stability in the AP direction to recover balance after completing a lateral step. In the ML direction, older adults took up to 30 s to regain balance. Considering that age was related to larger CoP displacement and velocity, the AP strategy to recover postural balance following a lateral step could become less efficient as older adults age and therefore increasing the risk of falls. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据