| Literature DB >> 27268048 |
Akira Kanai1,2, Sachiko Kiyama3, Hiroshi Goto4, Hidehito Tomita5, Ayuko Tanaka3, Mitsunobu Kunimi3, Tsutomu Okada6, Toshiharu Nakai3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical exercises are widely used in community programs, but not all older adults are willing to participate. Information and communication technology may solve this problem by allowing older people to participate in fitness programs at home. Use of remote instruction will facilitate physical exercise classes without requiring that participants gather at one place. The aim of this study was to examine use of a sit-to-stand task in evaluating motor function using conventional video communication in a telemetry system to enable real-time monitoring, and evaluation in physical performance of older adults at home.Entities:
Keywords: Iliac elevation maximum velocity; Knee extension maximum angular velocity; Multi-group structural equation modeling; Older adults; Physical batteries; Remote motion capture; Sit-stand-task
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27268048 PMCID: PMC4895954 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-016-0294-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Fig. 1a. Video recording of sit-to-stand motion. The motion was acquired from the left of the body, and the iliac elevation maximum velocity (IEMV) and knee extension maximum angle velocity (KEMAV) were measured using five color markers placed at the acromion (a; red), iliac crest (b; green), greater trochanter (c; yellow), lateral epicondyle of the femur (d; red), and lateral malleolus (e; green). The height of the chair is adjusted according to the length of the lower extremity. b. Comparison of webcam and VICON MX measurements of knee angle change during sit-to-stand motion. The solid line shows the average of 42 measurements using a webcam and the dashed line shows that with VICON MX. The temporal change of the knee angle was interpolated using 51 points (2 % for each step) to cover the whole sit-to-stand motion. The correlation coefficient (r) between the time series was 0.920 ± 0.089 (n = 42). Error bar: standard deviation
Physical characteristics of the participants and results of physical performance
| Young ( | Elderly ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 20.8 ± 0.9 | 74.1 ± 5.9 | −79.4 |
|
| Height (cm) | 165.9A ± 8.9 | 155.5 ± 8.4 | 6.8 |
|
| Weight (kg) | 58.9 ± 10.4 | 54.8 ± 10.0 | 2.3 | 0.024 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.3 ± 3.0 | 22.6 ± 3.4 | −1.78 | 0.080 |
| F8W test (sec) | 18.0 ± 2.4 | 26.9 ± 5.1 | −13.9 |
|
| Functional reach (cm) | 35.7 ± 5.4 | 30.6 ± 5.2 | 5.7 |
|
| Arm curl (times) | 32.6 ± 6.3 | 24.2 ± 4.8 | 8.6 |
|
| Heel rise test (times) | 26.6 ± 6.1 | 24.3 ± 7.1 | 2.1 | 0.041 |
| Illiac elevation maxmum velocity (cm/s) | 151.1 ± 27.9 | 116.4 ± 22.8 | 7.8 |
|
| Knee extension maximal angular velocity (deg/s) | 279.6 ± 52.3 | 239.3 ± 50.1 | 4.6 |
|
The performance of young adults was significantly better than that of older adults for F8W, FR, AC, IEMV and KEMAV (p < 0.001). Values are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. The two age groups were compared using t-statistics. df = 138
Correlations among the 6 behavioral datasets in each age group
| A) Pearson coefficient of correlation (r) between the measurement items in elderly people ( | ||||||
| F8Wa | FRb | ACc | HRd | IEMVe | KEMAVf | |
| F8W | - | |||||
| FR | -.524*** | - | ||||
| AC | -.358** | .375** | - | |||
| HRT | -.505** | .459*** | .521*** | - | ||
| IEMV | -.310* | .331* | .310* | .391** | - | |
| KEMAV | -.300* | .265* | .047 | .176 | .706*** | - |
| B) Pearson coefficient of correlation (r) between the measurement items in young people ( | ||||||
| F8W | FR | AC | HRT | IEMV | KEMAV | |
| F8W | - | |||||
| FR | -.340** | - | ||||
| AC | -.538*** | .318** | - | |||
| HRT | -.460*** | .320** | .523*** | - | ||
| IEMV | -.051 | .321** | .268* | .165 | - | |
| KEMAV | -.099 | .167 | .107 | .064 | .453*** | - |
Correlations among the behavioral datasets were obtained in multi-group SEM analysis for each age group. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, a: Figure-of-eight walk test, b: Functional reach, c: Arm curl, d: Heel rise, e: Iliac elevation maximum velocity, f: Knee extension maximal angular velocity
Fit indices for model comparisons
| Model assumption | AIC | BCC |
|---|---|---|
| Models concerning | ||
| Model 1 (measurement equivalence) | 57.917 | 61.865 |
| Model 2 (constrained between | 58.903 | 62.635 |
| Model 3 (constrained between | 59.373 | 62.925 |
| Model 4 (fully constrained) | 59.373 | 62.925 |
| Models concerning | ||
| Model 1 (measurement equivalence) | 53.212 | 57.160 |
| Model 2 (constrained between | 54.465 | 58.214 |
| Model 3 (constrained between | 51.541 | 55.291 |
| Model 4 (fully constrained) | 52.590 | 56.143 |
The extent of fit was compared among four SEM models with different constraints for the two movement parameters obtained using a webcam. The lower value of the fit index represents better fit of the model. AIC: Akaike information criterion; BCC: Browne-Cudeck Criterion. IEMV: iliac elevation maximum velocity; KEMAV: knee extension maximum angular velocity
Fig. 2Path diagrams for the iliac elevation maximum velocity (IEMV) in the older and young groups. Paths from muscular strength to skillfulness showed a significant effect in each group (p < 0.001). The path from IEMV to muscular strength was significant in the older group (β = 0.50, p < 0.001), but not in the young group (β = 0.28). GFI: goodness-of-fit index, CFI: confirmatory fit index, RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation
Fig. 3Path diagrams for the knee extension maximum angle velocity (KEMAV) in the older and young groups. Paths from muscular strength to skillfulness showed a significant effect in each group (p < 0.001). The path from the iliac elevation maximum velocity (IEMV) to muscular strength was significant in the older group (β = 0.20, p < 0.001), but not in the young group (β = 0.18). GFI: goodness-of-fit index, CFI: confirmatory fit index, RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation
Fig. 4Curves illustrating the iliac elevation velocity (IEMV, solid line) and knee extension angular velocity (KEMAV, broken line). a Young group. b Older group. The timing of KEMAV during sit-to-stand motion was delayed compared to IEMV in both groups