3.9 Review

Deterioration, Compensation and Motor Control Processes in Healthy Aging, Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease

Journal

GERIATRICS
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/geriatrics6010033

Keywords

aging; motor control; compensation; deterioration; Alzheimer's; cognition

Funding

  1. Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (INSERM) [ANR-15-IDEX-0003]
  2. French Investissements d'Avenir program, project ISITE-BFC [ANR-15-IDEX-0003]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article explores how aging is associated with modifications in brain structures and functions, which in turn impact behavior. Some changes in brain function may compensate for deteriorated functions, maintaining behavioral performance. Further research is needed to investigate specific motor control processes in age-related conditions.
Aging is associated with modifications of several brain structures and functions. These modifications then manifest as modified behaviors. It has been proposed that some brain function modifications may compensate for some other deteriorated ones, thus maintaining behavioral performance. Through the concept of compensation versus deterioration, this article reviews the literature on motor function in healthy and pathological aging. We first highlight mechanistic studies that used paradigms, allowing us to identify precise compensation mechanisms in healthy aging. Subsequently, we review studies investigating motor function in two often-associated neurological conditions, i.e., mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease. We point out the need to expand the knowledge gained from descriptive studies with studies targeting specific motor control processes. Teasing apart deteriorated versus compensating processes represents precious knowledge that could significantly improve the prevention and rehabilitation of age-related loss of mobility.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available