Stability of gait and interlimb coordination in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most falls in older adults occur when walking, specifically following a trip. This study investigated the short- and longer term responses of young (n = 24, 27.6 ± 4.5 yr) and older adults (n = 18, 69.1 ± 4.2 yr) to a trip during gait at comfortable speed and the role of interlimb coordination in recovery from tripping. Subjects walked on a self-paced treadmill when forward movement of their dominant leg was unexpectedly arrested for 250 ms. Recovery of center of mass (COM) movements and of double-support duration following perturbation was determined. In addition, the disruption and recovery of interlimb coordination of the arms and legs was evaluated. Although young and older subjects used similar lower limb strategies in response to the trip, older adults had less stable COM movement patterns before perturbation, had longer transient destabilization (>25%) after perturbation, required more gait cycles to recover double-support duration (older, 3.48 ± 0.7 cycles; young, 2.88 ± 0.4 cycles), and had larger phase shifts that persisted after perturbation (older, -83° to -90°; young, -39° to -42°). Older adults also had larger disruptions to interlimb coordination of the arms and legs. The timing of the initial disruption in coordination was correlated with the disturbance in gait stability only in young adults. In older adults, greater initial COM instability was related to greater longer term arm incoordination. These results suggest a relationship between interlimb coordination and gait stability, which may be associated with fall risk in older adults. Reduced coordination and gait stability suggest a need for stability-related functional training even in high-functioning older adults.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".