The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Central set influences on gait: Age-dependent effects of postural threat
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that anxiety regarding the potential consequences of a possible fall would alter gait patterns differently between younger and older adults. Sixteen younger and fifteen older adults participated in this study. Participants walked at a self-determined velocity along a 7.2-m walkway under 4 different conditions of postural threat; the walking conditions varied depending on the width constraints of the walkway (0.60 m vs 0.15 m) and the height of the walking surface (floor vs elevated: 0 m vs 0.60 m). Results indicated that although both younger and older adults altered their gait patterns under conditions of increased postural threat, the movement adaptations observed among older adults were substantially different to those adopted by younger adults. These age-dependent differences were strongly evidenced in the joint kinematics and the variability of the gait pattern within each condition. Our findings also indicated that when postural threat increased, the level of muscle activation throughout the gait cycle was altered in the distal musculature (gastrocnemius m. and tibialis anterior m.) among older adults only. Based on the age-related differences observed, we believe that the gait pattern alterations observed among younger and older adults reflect central set modifications to postural control that are mediated by a heightened anxiety imposed by the constraints of the testing conditions. Based on the age-dependent differences in the observed gait pa…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People walk more slowly on a smooth surface when it is elevated above the ground.
“Similarly, it was found that people walk more slowly on a smooth surface when it is elevated above the ground (Brown et al., 2002;Schniepp et al., 2014)”
From Preferred walking speed on rough terrain: is it all about energetics? (2019) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2002
Humans tend to walk slower when there is a greater consequence of falling.
“we know from experience that humans tend to walk slower when there is a greater consequence of falling (Brown et al., 2002;Schniepp et al., 2014).”
From Preferred walking speed on rough terrain: is it all about energetics? (2019) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2002
Simply minimizing COT does not fully represent the human objective function for walking speed.
“In summary, based on both the current findings, which show a difference between the speed that minimizes the COT and the preferred speed on rough terrain, and previous research (Brown et al., 2002;Clark-Carter et al., 1986;Monsch et al., 2012;Schniepp et al., 2014), it seems that simply minimizing COT does not fully represent the human objective function for walking speed.”
From Preferred walking speed on rough terrain: is it all about energetics? (2019) · cites this paper as Brown et al., 2002
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Functional (psychogenic) dizziness
(2016) · Handbook of clinical neurology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801772-2.00037-0 · Cited by 119
Preferred walking speed on rough terrain: is it all about energetics?
Gast, K., Kram, R., & Riemer, R. (2019) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.185447 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, L. A., Gage, W. H., Polych, M. A., Sleik, R. J., & Winder, T. R.
- Venue
- Experimental Brain Research
- Published
- 2002-06-12
- Volume
- 145
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 286-296
- ISSN
- 0014-4819
- 1432-1106
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review