4.5 Article

Postural control strategies differ in normal weight and overweight infants

期刊

GAIT & POSTURE
卷 55, 期 -, 页码 167-171

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.04.017

关键词

Overweight; Obesity; Postural control; Sitting

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence [1P20GM109090-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Evidence suggests obesity can have a negative influence on a child's motor development and postural control behavior. Little research has examined the impact of infant weight on gross motor behavior, particularly postural control at the onset of sitting. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether normal weight and overweight infants differed in their postural control strategies at the onset of sitting and one-month post onset of sitting. Methods: 29 infants (n = 19 normal weight, n = 10 overweight) were recruited to participate in this study. Infant's length and weight were measured at 3 months of age (visit 1). Infant's center of pressure (COP) was measured on an AMTI force platform at the onset of sitting (visit 2) and one-month post onset (visit 3). Data were analyzed using linear measures (range and RMS for the anterior/posterior (AP) and medial/lateral (ML) directions, sway path) and nonlinear measures (Sample Entropy in AP and ML directions). Results: Overweight infants had significantly greater RMS values in the ML direction at visit 2 and reduced Sway Path values in comparison to normal weight infants at visits 2 and 3. Further, there was a significant difference in Sample Entropy as overweight infants increased Sample Entropy from visit 2 to 3 while normal weight infants decreased Sample Entropy values during this time period. Conclusions: These findings suggest that overweight infants adopt a different postural control strategy. This altered strategy may limit exploration early in development. More research is needed to determine if longitudinal differences continue to emerge.

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

4.5
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