HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 94/2/1158    most recent 00396.2004v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (9) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schillings, A. M. Articles by Duysens, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schillings, A. M. Articles by Duysens, J.

Stumbling Over Obstacles in Older Adults Compared to Young Adults

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

Submitted 19 April 2004; accepted in final form 29 November 2004

Falls are a major problem in older adults. Many falls occur because of 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 (about 45 ms, RP1), medium-latency (about 80 ms, RP2), and long-latency responses (about 110 ms, RP3; about 160 ms, RP4). Latencies of RP1 responses increased by about 6 ms and of RP2 by 10–19 ms in older adults compared with 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:

				M. H. van der Linden, D. de Kam, B. G. M. van Engelen, H. T. Hendricks, and J. Duysens Fast Responses to Stepping on an Unexpected Surface Height Depend on Intact Large-Diameter Nerve Fibers: A Study on Charcot-Marie-Tooth Type 1A Disease J Neurophysiol, September 1, 2009; 102(3): 1684 - 1698. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]