4.5 Article

Kinematic analyses of the 180° standing turn:: effects of age on strategies adopted by healthy young and older women

Journal

GAIT & POSTURE
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 119-125

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.08.005

Keywords

turning; women; aging; falls; kinematics

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG 08808, AG10542] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Standing turns are associated with an increased risk for falls and fall-related injuries in the elderly. The purpose of this study was to test the (null) hypothesis that age has no effect on the kinematics of the 180 degrees turn. Ten young and 10 older healthy women were asked to complete a series of 180 degrees turns in a standing posture after picking up a light bowl with both hands. Foot-ground reactions, insole pressures and body segment kinematics were recorded in 62 trials at 100 Hz. Turning strategies were analyzed for effects of both age and turn direction on linear and angular foot kinematics, as well as pelvic axial rotation. The older women (OW) used a preparatory stepping strategy more often (170%, P < 0.002), and employed a lower average pelvic rotation rate (21%, p < 0.011) than the younger controls. The minimum foot separation distance for OW was less in their non-preferred than in their preferred turn direction (29%, p < 0.038), thereby increasing their risk of foot-foot interference and falling when turning in their non-preferred direction. The older women were more variable in their turn execution, particularly in minimum foot separation distance (55%, p < 0.022) and the maximum rate of pelvic rotation (82%, p < 0.035). Despite the fact that these healthy older women were careful to employ a preparatory stepping strategy and slower average rotational velocities, they were also more variable in their turn execution than the young. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available