OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the cognitive function contribution to straight- and curved-path walking differs for older adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Ambulatory clinical research training center. PARTICIPANTS: People (N=106) aged 65 to 92 years, able to walk household distances independently with or without an assistive device, and who scored 24 or greater on the Mini-Mental State Examination. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cognitive function was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) as a measure of psychomotor speed, and Trail Making Test Parts A and B (TMT-A and TMT-B) and the Trail Making Test difference score (TMT-B-A) as executive function measures of complex visual scanning and set shifting. Gait speed recorded over an instrumented walkway was used as the measure of straight-path walking. Curved-path walking was assessed using the Figure-of-8 Walk Test (F8W) and recorded as the total time and number of steps for completion. RESULTS: Both DSST and TMT-A independently contributed to usual gait speed (P<.001). TMT-A performance contributed to F8W time (P<.001). Neither TMT-B nor TMT-B-A contributed to usual gait speed or time to complete the F8W. For the number of steps taken to complete the F8W, TMT-A, TMT-B, and TMT-B-A (all P<.001) were independent contributors, while DSST performance was not. CONCLUSIONS: Curved-path walking, as measured by the F8W, involves different cognitive processes compared with straight-path walking. Cognitive flexibility and set-shifting processes uniquely contributed to how individuals navigated curved paths. The measure of curved-path walking provides different and meaningful information about daily life walking ability than usual gait speed alone.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the cognitive function contribution to straight- and curved-path walking differs for older adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Ambulatory clinical research training center. PARTICIPANTS: People (N=106) aged 65 to 92 years, able to walk household distances independently with or without an assistive device, and who scored 24 or greater on the Mini-Mental State Examination. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cognitive function was assessed using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) as a measure of psychomotor speed, and Trail Making Test Parts A and B (TMT-A and TMT-B) and the Trail Making Test difference score (TMT-B-A) as executive function measures of complex visual scanning and set shifting. Gait speed recorded over an instrumented walkway was used as the measure of straight-path walking. Curved-path walking was assessed using the Figure-of-8 Walk Test (F8W) and recorded as the total time and number of steps for completion. RESULTS: Both DSST and TMT-A independently contributed to usual gait speed (P<.001). TMT-A performance contributed to F8W time (P<.001). Neither TMT-B nor TMT-B-A contributed to usual gait speed or time to complete the F8W. For the number of steps taken to complete the F8W, TMT-A, TMT-B, and TMT-B-A (all P<.001) were independent contributors, while DSST performance was not. CONCLUSIONS: Curved-path walking, as measured by the F8W, involves different cognitive processes compared with straight-path walking. Cognitive flexibility and set-shifting processes uniquely contributed to how individuals navigated curved paths. The measure of curved-path walking provides different and meaningful information about daily life walking ability than usual gait speed alone.
Authors: Caterina Rosano; Howard Aizenstein; Jennifer Brach; Allison Longenberger; Stephanie Studenski; Anne B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Julia C Thomas; Charles Odonkor; Laura Griffith; Nicole Holt; Sanja Percac-Lima; Suzanne Leveille; Pensheng Ni; Nancy K Latham; Alan M Jette; Jonathan F Bean Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Charles A Odonkor; Julia C Thomas; Nicole Holt; Nancy Latham; Jessie Vanswearingen; Jennifer Sokol Brach; Suzanne G Leveille; Alan Jette; Jonathan Bean Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Peter C Coyle; Subashan Perera; Valerie Shuman; Jessie VanSwearingen; Jennifer S Brach Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Mette M Pedersen; Nicole E Holt; Laura Grande; Laura A Kurlinski; Marla K Beauchamp; Dan K Kiely; Janne Petersen; Suzanne Leveille; Jonathan F Bean Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jennifer S Brach; Kristin Lowry; Subashan Perera; Victoria Hornyak; David Wert; Stephanie A Studenski; Jessie M VanSwearingen Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Jennifer S Brach; Jessie M Van Swearingen; Subashan Perera; David M Wert; Stephanie Studenski Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jennifer S Brach; Jessie M VanSwearingen; Alexandra Gil; Neelesh K Nadkarni; Andrea Kriska; Rakie Cham; Subashan Perera Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 2.226