4.4 Article

Sensory and cognitive factors influencing functional ability in older adults

期刊

GERONTOLOGY
卷 51, 期 2, 页码 131-141

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000082199

关键词

cognitive aging; processing speed; everyday abilities; mobility

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [T32AG000274, R37AG005739] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIA NIH HHS [SR37AG05739, 5T32AG00274] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Age-related sensory and cognitive impairments have been related to functional performance in older adults. With regard to cognitive abilities, processing speed in particular may be strongly related to older adults' abilities to perform everyday tasks. Identifying and comparing cognitive correlates of functional performance is particularly important in order to design interventions to promote independence and prevent functional disability. Objective: The present study examined the relative importance of cognitive (specifically, speeded and nonspeeded) and sensory factors in relation to older adults' functional abilities. Functional abilities included measures of mobility and performance of everyday activities. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was employed. Five hundred and thirty adults between the ages of 62 and 94 completed measures of sensory, cognitive (including processing speed, attention, memory, intelligence) and functional abilities. Results: Overall, functional performance was most strongly associated with cognitive speed performance, but nonspeeded cognitive and sensory abilities also accounted for significant amounts of variance in functional performance. Age explained a small but statistically significant amount of additional variance in some functional abilities, but no additional variance in self-reported mobility measures. Conclusion: These findings point to the potential impact of multifaceted training programs, targeting both sensory and cognitive abilities for maintaining functional abilities. Copyright (C) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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