Cited by 136

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Central set influences on gait: Age-dependent effects of postural threat

Brown, Lesley A., Gage, William H., Polych, Melody A., Sleik, Ryan J., Winder, Toni R.·2002·Experimental Brain Research

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

Crossref · 10.1007/s00221-002-1082-0

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

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

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