| Literature DB >> 24795500 |
A Famuła1, O Nowotny-Czupryna2, K Czupryna2, J Nowotny3.
Abstract
The purpose of the research was to evaluate the efficiency of body balance regulation in the elderly and verify whether physical activity in adolescence could influence later physical efficiency. Research was carried out on 62 persons aged between 65 and 96 years of age. Fifty people declared that they undertook physical activity in adolescence, while 12 reported no activity. Stabilographic examinations were performed during trials with open and closed eyes on a horizontally situated platform tilted forward and backward. The centre-of-pressure (COP) path length, sway range area and centre-of-pressure velocity (COP velocity) were assessed. The safety margin when a person leans forward and backward was evaluated as well. On a horizontally situated platform, exclusion of visual control in most of the examined participants resulted in a significant increase in values of examined parameters. Tilting the platform caused in both groups an increase in values of all the parameters. These changes were more visible when a trial with eyes closed was performed and the group of active people obtained better results. These people were also able to use the support area more effectively when changing the position of the body. It was found that body balance disorder affects more often elderly people who were less active in adolescence and that with age visual balance control dominates the proprioceptive one. This means that physical activity directed towards, among other things, forming and improving the body balance regulation system is needed at an early age.Entities:
Keywords: body balance; elderly people; physical activity; stabilometry
Year: 2013 PMID: 24795500 PMCID: PMC4007063 DOI: 10.5604/20831862.1077558
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biol Sport ISSN: 0860-021X Impact factor: 2.806
AVERAGE VALUES OF COP PATH LENGTH, SWAY RANGE AREA AND VELOCITY OF COP IN BOTH GROUPS – DURING THE TRIAL PERFORMED STANDING WITH AND WITHOUT VISUAL CONTROL (OPEN EYES – OE AND CLOSED EYES – CE) ON THE HORIZONTALLY SITUATED PLATFORM, ON THE FORWARD TILTED PLATFORM AND ON THE BACKWARD TILTED PLATFORM
| Variable | Active | Non-active | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CE | OE | CE | OE | ||
| Horizontally situated platform | Path length (cm) | 73.5 | 58.4 | 44.2 | 43.6 |
| Sway (cm2) | 7.9 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 3.3 | |
| Velocity (cm · s-1) | 2.4 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 1.5 | |
|
| |||||
| Forward tilted platform | Path length (cm) | 78.9 | 60.7 | 51.6 | 48.7 |
| Sway (cm2) | 9.7 | 5.2 | 3.5 | 3.3 | |
| Velocity (cm · s-1) | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.6 | |
|
| |||||
| Backward tilted platform | Path length (cm) | 76.9 | 63.1 | 51.6 | 47.4 |
| Sway (cm2) | 8.9 | 7.5 | 3.6 | 4.4 | |
| Velocity (cm · s-1) | 2.6 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.5 | |
AVERAGE VALUES OF THE SAFETY MARGIN FROM THE FRONT AND FROM THE BACK IN BOTH GROUPS – IN A FREE UPRIGHT POSITION AND WHILE LEANING TOWARD THE LIMIT OF STABILITY ON THE HORIZONTALLY SITUATED PLATFORM (cm)
| Active | Non-active | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anterior limit of stability | US | FI | US | FI |
| 4,4 | 3,8 | 4,4 | 4,1 | |
| Posterior limit of stability | US | BI | US | BI |
| 3,5 | 3,1 | 3,7 | 3,7 | |
CHANGES IN AVERAGE VALUES OF COP PATH LENGTH (cm) AFTER TILTING THE PLATFORM FORWARD AND BACKWARD IN COMPARISON WITH INITIAL RESULTS OBTAINED ON THE HORIZONTALLY SITUATED PLATFORM IN BOTH GROUPS – IN THE TRIAL WITH OPEN (OE) AND CLOSED (CE) EYES
| Active | Non-active | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CE | OE | CE | OE | |
| Platform titled backward | 78,1 | 64,5 | 51,6 | 47,4 |
| Platform titled forward | 81,2 | 62,3 | 51,1 | 47,9 |
| Platform arranged horizontally | 72,8 | 58,0 | 44,5 | 43,6 |