OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of motor learning with that of standard exercise on measures of mobility and perceived function and disability. DESIGN: Single-blind randomized trial. SETTING: University research center. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (n = 40) with a mean age of 77.1 ± 6.0, normal walking speed (≥ 1.0 m/s), and impaired motor skills (Figure of 8 walk time >8 seconds). INTERVENTIONS: The motor learning program incorporated goal-oriented stepping and walking to promote timing and coordination within the phases of the gait cycle. The standard program employed endurance training by treadmill walking. Both included strength training and were offered twice weekly for 1 hour for 12 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were mobility performance (gait efficiency, motor skill in walking, gait speed, walking endurance); secondary outcomes were perceived function and disability (Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument). RESULTS:Thirty-eight of 40 participants completed the trial (motor learning, n = 18; standard, n = 20). The motor learning group improved more than the standard group in gait speed (0.13 vs 0.05 m/s, P = .008) and motor skill (-2.2 vs -0.89 seconds, P < .001). Both groups improved in walking endurance (28.3 and 22.9 m, P = .14). Changes in gait efficiency and perceived function and disability were not different between the groups (P > .10). CONCLUSION: In older adults with subclinical gait dysfunction, motor learning exercise improved some parameters of mobility performance more than standard exercise.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of motor learning with that of standard exercise on measures of mobility and perceived function and disability. DESIGN: Single-blind randomized trial. SETTING: University research center. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (n = 40) with a mean age of 77.1 ± 6.0, normal walking speed (≥ 1.0 m/s), and impaired motor skills (Figure of 8 walk time >8 seconds). INTERVENTIONS: The motor learning program incorporated goal-oriented stepping and walking to promote timing and coordination within the phases of the gait cycle. The standard program employed endurance training by treadmill walking. Both included strength training and were offered twice weekly for 1 hour for 12 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were mobility performance (gait efficiency, motor skill in walking, gait speed, walking endurance); secondary outcomes were perceived function and disability (Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument). RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 40 participants completed the trial (motor learning, n = 18; standard, n = 20). The motor learning group improved more than the standard group in gait speed (0.13 vs 0.05 m/s, P = .008) and motor skill (-2.2 vs -0.89 seconds, P < .001). Both groups improved in walking endurance (28.3 and 22.9 m, P = .14). Changes in gait efficiency and perceived function and disability were not different between the groups (P > .10). CONCLUSION: In older adults with subclinical gait dysfunction, motor learning exercise improved some parameters of mobility performance more than standard exercise.
Authors: R Boyd; S Fatone; J Rodda; C Olesch; R Starr; E Cullis; D Gallagher; J B Carlin; G R Nattrass; K Graham Journal: Dev Med Child Neurol Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 5.449
Authors: Alan M Jette; Stephen M Haley; Wendy J Coster; Jill T Kooyoomjian; Suzette Levenson; Tim Heeren; Jacqueline Ashba Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Alan M Jette; Wendy J Coster; Jill T Kooyoomjian; Suzette Levenson; Tim Heeren; Jacqueline Ashba Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 6.053
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: Qing-Hua Song; Quan-Hai Zhang; Rong-Mei Xu; Ming Ma; Xin-Ping Zhao; Guo-Qing Shen; Yan-Hua Guo; Yi Wang Journal: Int J Clin Exp Med Date: 2014-06-15
Authors: Ervin Sejdić; Kristin A Lowry; Jennica Bellanca; Subashan Perera; Mark S Redfern; Jennifer S Brach Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Valerie Shuman; Peter C Coyle; Subashan Perera; Jessie M Van Swearingen; Steve M Albert; Jennifer S Brach Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-11-13 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; Subashan Perera; Sandra Gilmore; Jessie M VanSwearingen; Deborah Brodine; David Wert; Neelesh K Nadkarni; Edmund Ricci Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.226