Absent Arm Swing and Dual Tasking Decreases Trunk Postural Control and Dynamic Balance in People With Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Falling during walking is a common occurrence in people with Parkinson’s Disease and is closely associated with severe social and medical consequences. Recent evidence demonstrates that arm swing affects dynamic balance in healthy young adults, however, it remains unexamined what its effect is in people with Parkinson’s Disease, particularly when combined with a secondary dual-task. Methods: Twenty people with Parkinson’s Disease (63.78±8.97) walked with two arm swing conditions (absent and normal) with and without a secondary dual-task. Data were collected on a split-belt treadmill CAREN Extended-System (Motek Medical, Amsterdam, NL). Average and standard deviations for trunk linear and angular velocity were calculated along with their instantaneous values (during foot-strikes) in all three axes. Averages and Coefficient of Variations for step length, time and width, Margin of Stability and Harmonic Ratios were also calculated. Results: Compared to normal arm swing, absent arm swing reduced the least affected leg’s average step length and increased its step length Coefficient of Variation while increasing step time Coefficient of Variation in the most affected leg. Further, absent arm swing reduced trunk sagittal instantaneous angular velocity (least affected leg) and reduced sagittal instantaneous linear velocity (bilaterally). For the vertical axis, absent arm increased the trunk’s average angular velocity but reduced its instantaneous linear velocity and angular velocity standard deviation (least affected leg). Additionally, the Margin of Stability increased when the arms were absent (least affected leg). Alternatively, dual-tasking reduced average step time (most affected leg) and increased the step width Coefficient of Variation (bilaterally). Additionally, dual-tasking increased the frontal plane’s average angular velocity, instantaneous linear velocity standard deviation (bilaterally), and instantaneous angular velocity standard deviation (least affected leg). For the vertical axis, dual-tasking increased average linear and angular velocity standard deviation as well as instantaneous angular velocity standard deviation (bilaterally). Conclusion: Findings suggest that participants attempted to control extraneous trunk movement (due to absent arm swing) through compensatory responses in both lower and upper extremities. However, participants appeared to predominately compensate on their least affected side. Contrastingly, modifying mediolateral foot placement appeared to be the main means of maintaining walking stability while dual-tasking.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".