Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Aging (1)
- Balance (1)
- Dual tasks (1)
- Falls (1)
- Gait (1)
Institute
Detection of changes in dynamic balance could help identify older adults at fall risk. Walking on a narrow beam with its width, cognitive load, and arm position manipulated could be an alternative to current tests. Therefore, we examined additive and interactive effects of beam width, cognitive task (CT), and arm position on dynamic balance during beam walking in older adults. Twenty older adults (69 +/- 4y) walked on 6, 8, and 10-cm wide beams (2-cm high, 4-m-long), with and without CT, with three arm positions (free, crossed, akimbo). We determined cognitive errors, distance walked, step speed, root mean square (RMS) of center of mass (COM) displacement and trunk acceleration in the frontal plane. Beam width decrease progressively reduced distance walked and increased trunk acceleration RMS. Step speed decreased on the narrowest beam and with CT. Arm crossing decreased distance walked and step speed. COM displacement RMS and cognitive errors were not affected by any manipulation. In conclusion, distance walked indicated that beam width and arm position, but less so CT, affected dynamic balance, implying that beam walking has the potential to become a test of fall risk. Stability measurements suggested effective trunk adjustments to control COM position and keep dynamic balance during the task.
Background: Dynamic balance keeps the vertical projection of the center of mass within the base of support while walking. Dynamic balance tests are used to predict the risks of falls and eventual falls. The psychometric properties of most dynamic balance tests are unsatisfactory and do not comprise an actual loss of balance while walking. Objectives: Using beam walking distance as a measure of dynamic balance, the BEAM consortium will determine the psychometric properties, lifespan and patient reference values, the relationship with selected “dynamic balance tests,” and the accuracy of beam walking distance to predict falls. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study will examine healthy adults in 7 decades (n = 432) at 4 centers. Center 5 will examine patients (n = 100) diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, stroke, and balance disorders. In test 1, all participants will be measured for demographics, medical history, muscle strength, gait, static balance, dynamic balance using beam walking under single (beam walking only) and dual task conditions (beam walking while concurrently performing an arithmetic task), and several cognitive functions. Patients and healthy participants age 50 years or older will be additionally measured for fear of falling, history of falls, miniBESTest, functional reach on a force platform, timed up and go, and reactive balance. All participants age 50 years or older will be recalled to report fear of falling and fall history 6 and 12 months after test 1. In test 2, seven to ten days after test 1, healthy young adults and age 50 years or older (n = 40) will be retested for reliability of beam walking performance. Conclusion: We expect to find that beam walking performance vis-à-vis the traditionally used balance outcomes predicts more accurately fall risks and falls. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT03532984.