Refine
Document Type
- Article (12)
- Postprint (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (16) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (16)
Keywords
- balance (16) (remove)
There is evidence for cortical contribution to the regulation of human postural control. Interference from concurrently performed cognitive tasks supports this notion, and the lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) has been suggested to play a prominent role in the processing of purely cognitive as well as cognitive-postural dual tasks. The degree of cognitive-motor interference varies greatly between individuals, but it is unresolved whether individual differences in the recruitment of specific lPFC regions during cognitive dual tasking are associated with individual differences in cognitive-motor interference. Here, we investigated inter-individual variability in a cognitive-postural multitasking situation in healthy young adults (n = 29) in order to relate these to inter-individual variability in lPFC recruitment during cognitive multitasking. For this purpose, a oneback working memory task was performed either as single task or as dual task in order to vary cognitive load. Participants performed these cognitive single and dual tasks either during upright stance on a balance pad that was placed on top of a force plate or during fMRI measurement with little to no postural demands. We hypothesized dual one-back task performance to be associated with lPFC recruitment when compared to single one-back task performance. In addition, we expected individual variability in lPFC recruitment to be associated with postural performance costs during concurrent dual one-back performance. As expected, behavioral performance costs in postural sway during dual-one back performance largely varied between individuals and so did lPFC recruitment during dual one-back performance. Most importantly, individuals who recruited the right mid-lPFC to a larger degree during dual one-back performance also showed greater postural sway as measured by larger performance costs in total center of pressure displacements. This effect was selective to the high-load dual one-back task and suggests a crucial role of the right lPFC in allocating resources during cognitivemotor interference. Our study provides further insight into the mechanisms underlying cognitive-motor multitasking and its impairments.
There is evidence for cortical contribution to the regulation of human postural control. Interference from concurrently performed cognitive tasks supports this notion, and the lateral prefrontal cortex (lPFC) has been suggested to play a prominent role in the processing of purely cognitive as well as cognitive-postural dual tasks. The degree of cognitive-motor interference varies greatly between individuals, but it is unresolved whether individual differences in the recruitment of specific lPFC regions during cognitive dual tasking are associated with individual differences in cognitive-motor interference. Here, we investigated inter-individual variability in a cognitive-postural multitasking situation in healthy young adults (n = 29) in order to relate these to inter-individual variability in lPFC recruitment during cognitive multitasking. For this purpose, a oneback working memory task was performed either as single task or as dual task in order to vary cognitive load. Participants performed these cognitive single and dual tasks either during upright stance on a balance pad that was placed on top of a force plate or during fMRI measurement with little to no postural demands. We hypothesized dual one-back task performance to be associated with lPFC recruitment when compared to single one-back task performance. In addition, we expected individual variability in lPFC recruitment to be associated with postural performance costs during concurrent dual one-back performance. As expected, behavioral performance costs in postural sway during dual-one back performance largely varied between individuals and so did lPFC recruitment during dual one-back performance. Most importantly, individuals who recruited the right mid-lPFC to a larger degree during dual one-back performance also showed greater postural sway as measured by larger performance costs in total center of pressure displacements. This effect was selective to the high-load dual one-back task and suggests a crucial role of the right lPFC in allocating resources during cognitivemotor interference. Our study provides further insight into the mechanisms underlying cognitive-motor multitasking and its impairments.
Background and objectives: Age-related losses of lower extremity muscle strength/power and deficits in static and particularly dynamic balance are associated with impaired functional performance and the occurrence of falls. It has been shown that balance and resistance training have the potential to improve balance and muscle strength in healthy older adults. However, it is still open to debate how the effectiveness of balance and resistance training in older adults is influenced by different factors. This includes the role of trunk muscle strength, the comprehensive effects of combined balance and resistance training, and the role of exercise supervision. Therefore, the primary objectives of this doctoral thesis are to investigate the relationship between trunk muscle strength and balance performance and to examine the effects of an expert-based balance and resistance training protocol on various measures of balance and lower extremity muscle strength/power in older adults. Furthermore, the impact of supervised versus unsupervised balance and/or resistance training interventions in the elderly will be evaluated.
Methods: Healthy older adults aged 63-80 years were included in a cross-sectional study, a longitudinal study, and a meta-analysis (range group means meta-analysis: 65.3-81.1 years) registering balance and muscle strength/power performance. Different measures of balance (i.e., static/dynamic, proactive, reactive) were examined using clinical (e.g., Romberg test) and instrumented tests (e.g., 10 meter walking test on a sensor-equipped walkway). Isometric strength of the trunk muscles was assessed using instrumented trunk muscle strength apparatus and lower extremity dynamic muscle strength/power was examined using clinical tests (e.g., Chair Stand Test). Further, a combined balance and resistance training protocol was applied to examine training-induced effects on balance and muscle strength/power as well as the role of supervision in older adults.
Results: Findings revealed that measures of trunk muscle strength and static steady-state balance as well as specific measures of dynamic steady-state balance were significantly associated in the elderly (0.42 ≤ r ≤ 0.57). Combined balance and resistance training significantly improved older adults' static/dynamic steady-state (e.g., Romberg test; habitual gait speed), pro-active (e.g., Timed Up and Go Test), and reactive balance (e.g., Push and Release Test) as well as muscle strength/power (e.g., Chair Stand Test) (0.62 ≤ Cohen’s d ≤ 2.86; all p < 0.05). Supervised compared to unsupervised balance and/or resistance training was superior in enhancing older adults' balance and muscle strength/power performance regarding all observed outcome categories [longitudinal study: effects for the supervised group 0.26 ≤ d ≤ 2.86, effects for the unsupervised group 0.06 ≤ d ≤ 2.30; meta-analysis: all between-subject standardized mean differences (SMDbs) in favor of the supervised training programs 0.24-0.53]. The meta-analysis additionally showed larger effects in favor of supervised interventions when compared to completely unsupervised interventions (0.28 ≤ SMDbs ≤ 1.24). These effects in favor of the supervised programs faded when compared with studies that implemented a small amount of supervised sessions in their unsupervised interventions (−0.06 ≤ SMDbs ≤ 0.41).
Conclusions: Trunk muscle strength is associated with steady-state balance performance and may therefore be integrated in fall-preventive exercise interventions for older adults. The examined positive effects on a large number of important intrinsic fall risk factors (e.g., balance deficits, muscle weakness) imply that particularly the combination of balance and resistance training appears to be a feasible and effective exercise intervention for fall prevention. Owing to the beneficial effects of supervised compared to unsupervised interventions, supervised sessions should be integrated in fall-preventive balance and/or resistance training programs for older adults.
Power training programs have proved to be effective in improving components of physical fitness such as speed. According to the concept of training specificity, it was postulated that exercises must attempt to closely mimic the demands of the respective activity. When transferring this idea to speed development, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted sprint (RST) vs. traditional power training (TPT) on physical fitness in healthy young adults. Thirty-five healthy, physically active adults were randomly assigned to a RST (n = 10, 23 ± 3 years), a TPT (n = 9, 23 ± 3 years), or a passive control group (n = 16, 23 ± 2 years). RST and TPT exercised for 6 weeks with three training sessions/week each lasting 45–60 min. RST comprised frontal and lateral sprint exercises using an expander system with increasing levels of resistance that was attached to a treadmill (h/p/cosmos). TPT included ballistic strength training at 40% of the one-repetition-maximum for the lower limbs (e.g., leg press, knee extensions). Before and after training, sprint (20-m sprint), change-of-direction speed (T-agility test), jump (drop, countermovement jump), and balance performances (Y balance test) were assessed. ANCOVA statistics revealed large main effects of group for 20-m sprint velocity and ground contact time (0.81 ≤ d ≤ 1.00). Post-hoc tests showed higher sprint velocity following RST and TPT (0.69 ≤ d ≤ 0.82) when compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to 4.5% for RST [90%CI: (−1.1%;10.1%), d = 1.23] and 2.6% for TPT [90%CI: (0.4%;4.8%), d = 1.59]. Additionally, ground contact times during sprinting were shorter following RST and TPT (0.68 ≤ d ≤ 1.09) compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to −6.3% for RST [90%CI: (−11.4%;−1.1%), d = 1.45) and −2.7% for TPT [90%CI: (−4.2%;−1.2%), d = 2.36]. Finally, effects for change-of-direction speed, jump, and balance performance varied from small-to-large. The present findings indicate that 6 weeks of RST and TPT produced similar effects on 20-m sprint performance compared with a passive control in healthy and physically active, young adults. However, no training-related effects were found for change-of-direction speed, jump and balance performance. We conclude that both training regimes can be applied for speed development.
Power training programs have proved to be effective in improving components of physical fitness such as speed. According to the concept of training specificity, it was postulated that exercises must attempt to closely mimic the demands of the respective activity. When transferring this idea to speed development, the purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of resisted sprint (RST) vs. traditional power training (TPT) on physical fitness in healthy young adults. Thirty-five healthy, physically active adults were randomly assigned to a RST (n = 10, 23 ± 3 years), a TPT (n = 9, 23 ± 3 years), or a passive control group (n = 16, 23 ± 2 years). RST and TPT exercised for 6 weeks with three training sessions/week each lasting 45–60 min. RST comprised frontal and lateral sprint exercises using an expander system with increasing levels of resistance that was attached to a treadmill (h/p/cosmos). TPT included ballistic strength training at 40% of the one-repetition-maximum for the lower limbs (e.g., leg press, knee extensions). Before and after training, sprint (20-m sprint), change-of-direction speed (T-agility test), jump (drop, countermovement jump), and balance performances (Y balance test) were assessed. ANCOVA statistics revealed large main effects of group for 20-m sprint velocity and ground contact time (0.81 ≤ d ≤ 1.00). Post-hoc tests showed higher sprint velocity following RST and TPT (0.69 ≤ d ≤ 0.82) when compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to 4.5% for RST [90%CI: (−1.1%;10.1%), d = 1.23] and 2.6% for TPT [90%CI: (0.4%;4.8%), d = 1.59]. Additionally, ground contact times during sprinting were shorter following RST and TPT (0.68 ≤ d ≤ 1.09) compared to the control group, but no difference between RST and TPT. Pre-to-post changes amounted to −6.3% for RST [90%CI: (−11.4%;−1.1%), d = 1.45) and −2.7% for TPT [90%CI: (−4.2%;−1.2%), d = 2.36]. Finally, effects for change-of-direction speed, jump, and balance performance varied from small-to-large. The present findings indicate that 6 weeks of RST and TPT produced similar effects on 20-m sprint performance compared with a passive control in healthy and physically active, young adults. However, no training-related effects were found for change-of-direction speed, jump and balance performance. We conclude that both training regimes can be applied for speed development.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of plyometric training on stable (SPT) vs. highly unstable surfaces (IPT) on athletic performance in adolescent soccer players. 24 male sub-elite soccer players (age: 15 +/- 1 years) were assigned to 2 groups performing plyometric training for 8 weeks (2 sessions/week, 90min each). The SPT group conducted plyometrics on stable and the IPT group on unstable surfaces. Tests included jump performance (countermovement jump [CMJ] height, drop jump [DJ] height, DJ performance index), sprint time, agility and balance. Statistical analysis revealed significant main effects of time for CMJ height (p<0.01, f=1.44), DJ height (p<0.01, f=0.62), DJ performance index (p<0.05, f=0.60), 0-10-m sprint time (p<0.05, f=0.58), agility (p<0.01, f=1.15) and balance (p<0.05, 0.46f1.36). Additionally, a Training groupxTime interaction was found for CMJ height (p<0.01, f=0.66) in favor of the SPT group. Following 8 weeks of training, similar improvements in speed, agility and balance were observed in the IPT and SPT groups. However, the performance of IPT appears to be less effective for increasing CMJ height compared to SPT. It is thus recommended that coaches use SPT if the goal is to improve jump performance.