Age-Related Differences in Laterally Directed Compensatory Stepping Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lateral falls are common in older adults and are associated with an elevated risk of hip fracture, compared with falls in other directions. Although rapid stepping movements can play an important functional role in maintaining balance, control of lateral stepping is a complex and demanding motor task. This study examined whether there are age-related differences in the stepping behavior used to recover from lateral loss of balance. METHODS: Rapid stepping reactions were evoked in healthy, active young (aged 20-30 years; N = 10) and older (aged 65-73 years; N = 10) volunteers by means of a sudden unpredictable motion of a platform on which the subject either stood quietly or walked in place. Subjects were instructed to respond naturally. Video analysis was performed to characterize the patterns of limb movement evoked by lateral platform motion. RESULTS: In responding to lateral perturbation of stance, the older adults were much more likely than the young adults to take multiple steps or use arm reactions to regain equilibrium, particularly when attempting crossover steps. During walk-in-place trials, both young and older subjects more frequently used a sequence of side steps rather than crossovers; however, older adults were still more likely to take extra steps or use arm reactions. Collisions between swing foot and stance limb occurred in 55% of walk-in-place trials in older adults versus only 8% in young adults. CONCLUSIONS: Control of lateral-stepping reactions appears to create difficulties for active and healthy older adults above and beyond previously reported problems in controlling forward and backward stepping. Impaired control of lateral-stepping reactions may be an early indicator of increased risk for lateral falls and hip fracture and should be an important consideration in the development of clinical approaches to predicting and preventing falls and related injuries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".