JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (December 22, 2004). doi:10.1152/jn.00396.2004
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
94/2/1158    most recent
00396.2004v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schillings, I.
Right arrow Articles by Duysens, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schillings, I.
Right arrow Articles by Duysens, J.
Submitted on April 19, 2004
Accepted on November 29, 2004

Stumbling over obstacles in older adults compared to young adults

Ieke Schillings1*, Theo Mulder2, and Jaak Duysens3

1 Biophysics UMC, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Sint Maartenskliniek Research, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
2 Human Movement Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
3 Sint Maartenskliniek Research, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Biophysics UMC, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ieke{at}mbfys.kun.nl.

Falls are a major problem in older adults. Many falls are due to stumbling. The aim of the present study is to investigate stumbling reactions of older adults and to compare them with young adults. While subjects walked on a treadmill, a rigid obstacle unexpectedly obstructed the forward sway of the foot. In general, older adults used the same movement strategies as young adults ('elevating' and 'lowering'). The electromyographic responses were categorized according to latencies: short-latency (~45 ms, RP1), medium-latency (~80 ms, RP2), and long-latency responses (~110 ms, RP3; ~160 ms, RP4). Latencies of RP1 responses increased by ~6 ms and of RP2 by 10-19 ms in older adults compared to the young. Amplitudes of RP1 were similar for both age groups, whereas amplitudes of RP2-RP4 could differ. In the early-swing elevating strategy (perturbed foot directly lifted over the obstacle) older adults showed smaller responses in ipsilateral upper-leg muscles (biceps femoris and rectus femoris). This was related to shorter swing durations, more shortened step distances, and more failures in clearing the obstacle. In parallel, RP4 activity in the contralateral biceps femoris was enhanced, possibly pointing to a higher demand for trunk stabilization. In the late-swing lowering strategy (foot placed on the treadmill before clearing the obstacle) older adults showed lower RP2-RP3 responses in most muscles measured. However, kinematic responses were similar to those of the young. It is concluded that the changes in muscular responses in older adults induce a greater risk of falling after tripping, especially in early swing.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci.Home page
V. Weerdesteyn, B. Nienhuis, A. C. H. Geurts, and J. Duysens
Age-Related Deficits in Early Response Characteristics of Obstacle Avoidance Under Time Pressure
J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., September 1, 2007; 62(9): 1042 - 1047.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2004 by the The American Physiological Society.