3.8 Article

Rhythmic ability decline in aging individuals: The role of movement task complexity

期刊

BIOMEDICAL HUMAN KINETICS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 41-53

出版社

SCIENDO
DOI: 10.2478/bhk-2022-0006

关键词

Gait analysis; Tapping; Rhythmic reproduction; Coordination; Elderly

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study showed that age-related changes in rhythmic reproduction ability are influenced by the complexity of the adopted movement task. Older adults demonstrated reduced accuracy and tendency to speed up beats reproduction, especially in more complex tasks like walking. Further research should examine how specific rhythmic training with progressive movement task complexity can help counteract this age-related decline.
Study aim: To investigate age-related changes in rhythmic reproduction ability in relation to the complexity of the adopted movement task. Material and methods: A Stereophotogrammetric system was used to quantify individual rhythmic performances through motion analysis. Seventeen younger adult (age: 34.8 +/- 4.2 yrs) and sixteen older adult (age: 69.9 +/- 3.8 yrs) sedentary individuals volunteered for this study. Participants were administered a rhythmic test, which included three different rhythmic patterns to be reproduced by means of finger-tapping. foot-tapping and walking. Number of correct reproductions, time delays and rhythmic ratios were assessed and submitted to analysis of variance. Results: For all rhythmic parameters. age-related differences emerged about rhythmic patterns and motor tasks. Older adults showed reduced accuracy as compared to their younger counterparts with a marked tendency to speed up beats reproduction (p < 0.05). Increased movement complexity negatively influenced rhythmic ability, with worst performances in the walking task (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Complexity of the motor reproduction worsen rhythmic ability. Future research should focus on how specific rhythmic training with progressive movement task complexity could contrast this age-related decline.

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

3.8
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