Effects of Aging in Reaching and Grasping Movements: A Kinematic Analysis of Movement Context
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although several studies have investigated the effects of aging on aspects of motor planning and control, there remains a lack of consensus about the underlying mechanisms responsible for the motor slowing associated with aging. This may, at least partially, be due to the fact that few studies have kinematically examined both the transport and grasp components in both younger and older adults, and furthermore, even fewer have examined these movements when the context of the task is changed, such as when the movement is performed in isolation compared to when it is embedded in a sequence. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis was threefold: 1) to investigate how aging affects performance on a single reach-to-grasp movement, 2) to examine how movement context affects performance on the reach-to-grasp movement when it is performed alone or as the first movement in a two-movement sequence- in other words, are older adults able to plan the first motor task movement in anticipation of performing a subsequent task, and 3) whether younger and older adults are able to plan, execute, and modify that movement in accordance with the extrinsic properties of the subsequent movement task (near versus far target for second movement). To address this, the movement profiles of both younger (N=14; mean age= 20.7 years; 4 males, 10 females) and older (N=11; mean age= 75.1 years; 3 males, 8 females) healthy right-handed adults were compared on performing a reach-to-grasp movement under 3 different movement conditions: single-movement task, two-movement sequence to near target, and two-movement sequence to far target. For the two-movement sequence conditions, participants were instructed to reach and grasp the object (like the single-movement task), but then to move and place it on either a closer (near condition) or farther (far condition) target location. Overall, the results from this study are in agreement with the literature showing older adults to have slower movements in general and consistently taking longer to both initiate and execute the reach-to-grasp movement than the younger adults for all conditions. There were no other differences between groups on the single-movement condition. For all participants, the reach-to-grasp movement took longer when it was performed in isolation than when it was embedded as the first part of a two-movement sequence. This finding can be explained by the movement termination effect and is consistent with findings from studies on aiming movements showing that when the movement plan involves stabilizing the arm at the first target (single-movement) as opposed to merely slowing it down (two-movement sequence tasks), the constraint of achieving a stabile position imposes a greater demand, thus requiring the movement \niv \nto be made more slowly. The results obtained from the study indicate that the movement termination effect is also seen in the context of prehensile movements and furthermore, this effect on performance persists with age. Not only do the findings from this study show that this effect persists with age, but also that this effect increases with age, as revealed by a Group by Condition effect for reaction time, movement time, and relative timing of the velocity profile, indicating greater changes in reaching performance between single- and two-movement conditions for the older adults than for the younger adults. Upon further examination of the details of the movement, it is apparent this movement termination effect is reflected in the ballistic phase of the movement. This last notion is inconsistent with previous studies, which showed the increased movement time associated with the movement termination effect was the result of changes in the amount of time spent in the deceleration phase toward the end of the movement rather than the beginning of the movement. Lastly, when reach-to-grasp performance was compared between moving to a near- compared to a far-target in the two-movement conditions, no differences were found between any of the movement features for either group. This suggests that the increased proportion of time spent in deceleration for the dual-movement conditions compared to the single-movement condition in older adults is due to online feedback control for terminating the first movement rather than online planning of the second movement. Despite the changes seen in the transport component, the findings for the manipulation component indicate that the formation of the grasp and its relative coupling with the transport component remains intact with age.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».