Variability of centre of pressure movement during gait in young and middle-aged women
Language English Country Great Britain, England Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
24973140
DOI
10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.05.065
PII: S0966-6362(14)00597-9
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Fall risk, Ground reaction force, Stance phase, Walking,
- MeSH
- Biomechanical Phenomena physiology MeSH
- Gait physiology MeSH
- Walking physiology MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Movement physiology MeSH
- Postural Balance physiology MeSH
- Pressure MeSH
- Age Factors MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
The variability of the centre of pressure (COP) movement is a tool that is often used for stability assessments during standing; however, this variable can provide relevant findings during dynamic conditions, which are more related to fall risks. The aim of this study was to investigate age-related differences in the variability of COP movement. Healthy young (younger group - 25 subjects, age 22.2 ± 1.8 years) and middle-aged (elder group - 25 subjects, age 56.6 ± 4.9 years) females participated in this study. The ground reaction forces and COP movement during walking at a self-selected speed were recorded using two force platforms. Each stance phase was divided into four subphases: loading response (LR), mid-stance (MSt), terminal stance (TSt) and preswing (PS). Standard deviations of the medial-lateral, anterior-posterior and total COP displacements were assessed. For statistical comparisons, one-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni post-hoc test were used. These results showed significantly higher COP movement variability in selected variables in the PS, LR and MSt subphases in the elder group (p < 0.05) compared with the younger group; no differences were found in the TSt subphase. A comparison of the subphases within the groups revealed significant differences (p < 0.001 for all cases and both groups) between the parameters in the LR × MSt, LR × TSt, MSt × PS and TSt×PS subphases. The LR and PS subphases showed significantly higher values for the variability parameters.
References provided by Crossref.org
