Control of rapid limb movements for balance recovery: age-related changes and implications for fall prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: balancing reactions that involve rapid stepping or reaching movements are critical for preventing falls. These compensatory reactions are much more rapid than volitional limb movements and can be very effective in decelerating the centre-of-mass motion induced by sudden unpredictable balance perturbation; however, age-related deterioration in the neural, sensory and/or musculoskeletal systems may impede the ability to execute these reactions effectively. OBJECTIVE: this paper summarises recent research regarding age-related changes in compensatory stepping and reaching reactions and the practical implications of these findings for fall prevention programmes. RESULTS: even healthy older adults experience pronounced difficulties. For stepping reactions, the main problems pertain to control of lateral stability--arresting the lateral body motion that occurs during forward and backward steps, and controlling lateral foot movement so as to avoid collision with the stance limb during lateral steps. Older adults appear to be more reliant on arm reactions than young adults but are less able to execute reach-to-grasp reactions rapidly. CONCLUSIONS: it is important for clinicians to assess compensatory stepping and reaching, in order to identify individuals who are at risk of falling and to pinpoint specific control problems to target for balance or strength training or other intervention. More effective use of stepping and reaching reactions can be promoted through improved design and appropriate use of sensory aids, mobility aids, footwear, handrails and grab-bars. It is particularly important to address the problems associated with the control of lateral stability because it is the lateral falls that are most likely to result in hip fracture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".