4.4 Article

Evaluation of age-related plantar-surface insensitivity and onset age of advanced insensitivity in older adults using vibratory and touch sensation tests

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS
卷 392, 期 1-2, 页码 62-67

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2005.08.060

关键词

sensation; aging; human; foot; touch; vibration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Age-related decline in plantar-surface sensitivity has been cited as one of the reasons for balance problems in older adults. This study investigated the level of plantar-surface sensitivity in older adults compared to young adults. Additionally, this study attempted to identify the onset age of advanced insensitivity in older adults and how well monofilament testing was able to predict insensitivity and onset age of advanced insensitivity. Vibration thresholds were assessed at four frequencies (3, 25, 100 and 250 Hz) and four foot sole locations (heel, first metatarsal, fifth metatarsal and great toe). Touch thresholds were evaluated with Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments at the same four locations. Results indicated that older adults showed insensitivity to vibratory (25 and 100 Hz) and touch stimuli when compared to young adults. Vibration testing at 100 Hz indicated that early in the seventh decade (72-73 years old) participants started to show a doubling of their detection threshold as compared to their younger counterparts (65-71 years old). Regression analysis indicated a significant predictive value of the monofilaments to 100 Hz vibration thresholds, but a caution is noted that this type of testing is not as sensitive to the onset of advanced plantar-surface insensitivity. Therefore, older adults have significant plantar-surface insensitivity as compared to young adults and have an onset of advanced insensitivity in the seventh decade of life. Monofilaments are useful to assess the age-related insensitivity but are not when attempting to identify the onset of advanced insensitivity. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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