Aner Weiss1, Anat Mirelman2, Nir Giladi3, Lisa L Barnes4, David A Bennett5, Aron S Buchman5, Jeffrey M Hausdorff6. 1. Center for the Study of Movement, Cognition, and Mobility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 2. Center for the Study of Movement, Cognition, and Mobility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; Department of Physical Therapy, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Center for the Study of Movement, Cognition, and Mobility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; Department of Physical Therapy, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; Department of Neurology, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 4. Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Department of Behavioral Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL. 5. Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL; Department of Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL. 6. Center for the Study of Movement, Cognition, and Mobility, Neurological Institute, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel; Department of Physical Therapy, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. Electronic address: jhausdor@tlvmc.gov.il.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Timed Up and Go (TUG), one of the most widely used tests of mobility, has been validated and associated with adverse outcomes in the community, acute care, and nursing home setting. It is composed of several distinct subtasks; however, the temporal relationship when transitioning between subtasks has not been well-studied. We tested the hypothesis that longer transition durations between the final turn to the sitting subtasks are associated with worse motor and cognitive performance in older adults. METHODS: A total of 1055 participants (80.33 ± 7.57 years, 76.96% female) performed the TUG while wearing a 3-dimensional inertial sensor on their lower back. We employed a series of linear regressions to examine the association of the duration between the turn and sitting subtasks with clinical characteristics including motor and cognitive functions. RESULTS: Participants employed 2 different strategies when they transitioned from turning to sitting. (1) Distinct transition strategy: 816 participants (77.34%) first completed the turn before starting to sit. The average duration between these distinct subtasks (D-interval) was 715 ± 980 ms. (2) Overlapping transition strategy: 239 participants (22.65%) started to sit before completing the turn. The average overlap duration between these tasks (O-interval) was 237 ± 269 ms. Participants who employed the distinct transition strategy were slightly younger than those who employed the overlapping transition strategy (P ≤ .013). Higher D-intervals and O-intervals were associated with worse TUG performance (P ≤ .02), with poorer motor and cognitive function, [ie, worse parkinsonian gait (P ≤ .001), lower level of perceptual speed (P ≤ .03), and with worse mobility disability (P ≤ .001)]. A longer D-interval was associated with worse gait speed and bradykinesia (P ≤ .001), whereas a longer O-interval was associated with increased rigidity (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults apparently employ 2 different strategies when transitioning from turning to sitting. The instrumented TUG can characterize additional gait and balance aspects that cannot be derived from traditional TUG assessments. These new measures offer novel targets for intervention to decrease the burden of late-life gait impairment.
OBJECTIVE: The Timed Up and Go (TUG), one of the most widely used tests of mobility, has been validated and associated with adverse outcomes in the community, acute care, and nursing home setting. It is composed of several distinct subtasks; however, the temporal relationship when transitioning between subtasks has not been well-studied. We tested the hypothesis that longer transition durations between the final turn to the sitting subtasks are associated with worse motor and cognitive performance in older adults. METHODS: A total of 1055 participants (80.33 ± 7.57 years, 76.96% female) performed the TUG while wearing a 3-dimensional inertial sensor on their lower back. We employed a series of linear regressions to examine the association of the duration between the turn and sitting subtasks with clinical characteristics including motor and cognitive functions. RESULTS:Participants employed 2 different strategies when they transitioned from turning to sitting. (1) Distinct transition strategy: 816 participants (77.34%) first completed the turn before starting to sit. The average duration between these distinct subtasks (D-interval) was 715 ± 980 ms. (2) Overlapping transition strategy: 239 participants (22.65%) started to sit before completing the turn. The average overlap duration between these tasks (O-interval) was 237 ± 269 ms. Participants who employed the distinct transition strategy were slightly younger than those who employed the overlapping transition strategy (P ≤ .013). Higher D-intervals and O-intervals were associated with worse TUG performance (P ≤ .02), with poorer motor and cognitive function, [ie, worse parkinsonian gait (P ≤ .001), lower level of perceptual speed (P ≤ .03), and with worse mobility disability (P ≤ .001)]. A longer D-interval was associated with worse gait speed and bradykinesia (P ≤ .001), whereas a longer O-interval was associated with increased rigidity (P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults apparently employ 2 different strategies when transitioning from turning to sitting. The instrumented TUG can characterize additional gait and balance aspects that cannot be derived from traditional TUG assessments. These new measures offer novel targets for intervention to decrease the burden of late-life gait impairment.
Authors: Andrea Macaluso; Myra A Nimmo; John E Foster; Muriel Cockburn; Nigel C McMillan; Giuseppe De Vito Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Lisa L Barnes; Raj C Shah; Neelum T Aggarwal; David A Bennett; Julie A Schneider Journal: Curr Alzheimer Res Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: David A Bennett; Aron S Buchman; Patricia A Boyle; Lisa L Barnes; Robert S Wilson; Julie A Schneider Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Aner Weiss; Talia Herman; Anat Mirelman; Shirley Shema Shiratzky; Nir Giladi; Lisa L Barnes; David A Bennett; Aron S Buchman; Jeffrey M Hausdorff Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2018-10-21 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Aron S Buchman; Robert J Dawe; Sue E Leurgans; Thomas A Curran; Timothy Truty; Lei Yu; Lisa L Barnes; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; David A Bennett Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 6.591
Authors: Robert J Dawe; Lei Yu; Sue E Leurgans; Timothy Truty; Thomas Curran; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Markus A Wimmer; Joel A Block; David A Bennett; Aron S Buchman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 3.240