| Literature DB >> 30143006 |
Kimi Estela Kobayashi-Cuya1,2, Ryota Sakurai3, Naoko Sakuma1, Hiroyuki Suzuki1, Masashi Yasunaga1, Susumu Ogawa1, Toru Takebayashi2, Yoshinori Fujiwara1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An association between handgrip strength, hand dexterity and global cognition is suggested; however, it is unclear whether both hand motor functions are associated with executive function, which is important for performing daily activities. Understanding this association will help identify motor risk factors for impairment of executive function in late adulthood. We aim to investigate the relationship of handgrip strength and hand dexterity with executive function in physically and mentally healthy community-dwelling older adults.Entities:
Keywords: Cognitive function; Community-dwelling older adults; Executive function; Hand dexterity; Handgrip strength
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30143006 PMCID: PMC6109297 DOI: 10.1186/s12877-018-0880-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Geriatr ISSN: 1471-2318 Impact factor: 3.921
Comparison of covariates, hand and cognitive variables among age categories (N = 326)
| Variables | Age categories | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60–64 ( | 65–69 ( | 70–74 ( | ≥ 75 ( | ||
| Years of education | 14.4 ± 2.5 | 13.4 ± 2.2 | 13.3 ± 2.5⁎ | 12.8 ± 2.7⁎ | 0.004 |
| TMIG-IC | 12.2 ± 0.8 | 12.3 ± 0.9 | 12.4 ± 0.9 | 12.2 ± 1.3 | 0.645 |
| GDS | 2.3 ± 2.1 | 3.1 ± 2.5 | 2.5 ± 2.3 | 3.0 ± 2.3 | 0.09 |
| Heart disease, n (%) | 2 (3.7) | 1 (1.0) | 11 (10.9) | 7 (10.4) | 0.012a |
| Diabetes, n (%) | 2 (3.7) | 9 (8.7) | 6 (5.9) | 5 (7.5) | 0.670a |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 11 (20.4) | 23 (22.1) | 27 (26.7) | 28 (41.8) | 0.020a |
| Stroke, n (%) | 3 (5.6) | 6 (5.8) | 5 (5.0) | 3 (4.5) | 0.983a |
| Hand motor variables, mean ± SD | |||||
| Handgrip strength (Kg) | 23.4 ± 4.7 | 22.6 ± 5.3 | 22.9 ± 7.0 | 20.9 ± 6.3 | 0.104 |
| PPT (Number of pegs) | 14.5 ± 1.5 | 13.7 ± 2.1 | 13.1 ± 1.9⁎ | 11.9 ± 1.9⁎,†,‡ | < 0.001 |
| Cognitive variables, mean ± SD | |||||
| MMSE | 29.2 ± 0.9 | 28.8 ± 1.3 | 28.9 ± 1.0 | 28.6 ± 1.3⁎ | 0.023 |
| TMT-A | 30.2 ± 7.7 | 35.3 ± 13.2 | 37.9 ± 11.1⁎ | 43.2 ± 12.4⁎,†,‡ | < 0.001 |
| TMT-B | 74.5 ± 18.6 | 91.9 ± 37.6⁎ | 107.4 ± 39.9⁎,† | 121.6 ± 40.8⁎,† | < 0.001 |
| Digit symbolb | 67.7 ± 9.3 | 60.2 ± 13.8 | 55.3 ± 10.9⁎ | 45.6 ± 8.4⁎,†,‡ | < 0.001 |
Values are expressed as mean ± SD
TMIG-IC Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology - Index of Competence, GDS Geriatric Depression Scale, MMSE Mini-Mental State Examination, TMT Trail Making Test
Bonferroni correction for post-hoc tests: *p < 0.008 vs. 60–64; †p < 0.008 vs. 65–69; ‡p < 0.008 vs. 70–74
aThe Chi-square test was performed
bThe total number of subjects analyzed was 207
Fig. 1Scatter diagrams of the relationships between hand motor variables (handgrip strength, PPT performance) and executive function variables (TMT-A, TMT-B, Digit symbol). Each plot shows the best-fit simple regression line, the correlation coefficient (r) and the statistical significance (p). aThe total number of subjects analyzed was 207
Fig. 2Scatter diagram of the relationship between handgrip strength and hand dexterity, measured by PPT performance. The plot shows the best-fit simple regression line, the correlation coefficient (r) and the statistical significance (p)
Multiple Linear Regression Model Summary for TMT-A, TMT-B and Digit symbol
| Dependent variables | Independent variables | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||||
| HG | PPT | HG | PPT | |||||
| β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | |||||
| TMT-A | −0.12 (− 0.55, 0.06) | 0.114 | −0.33 (−2.60, − 1.32) | < 0.001 | −0.33 (− 2.58, − 1.29) | < 0.001 | −0.09 (− 0.47, 0.10) | 0.177 |
| TMT-B | −0.02 (−1.11, 0.84) | 0.782 | − 0.12 (− 4.38, − 0.06) | 0.044 | −0.12 (− 4.38, − 0.04) | 0.046 | −0.01 (− 1.04, 0.90) | 0.888 |
| Digit symbola | 0.02 (− 0.39, 0.31) | 0.827 | 0.30 (1.08, 2.56) | < 0.001 | 0.30 (1.08, 2.56) | < 0.001 | 0.03 (−0.39, 0.28) | 0.751 |
Each of the regressions was performed separately for each independent variable (TMT-A, TMT-B, and digit symbol)
Model 1: includes two hand variables analyzed separately as independent variables and adjusted for age (a continuous variable), sex, years of education, TMIG-Index of Competence, GDS, hypertension, stroke, heart disease, diabetes and MMSE
Model 2: includes two hand variables analyzed together as independent variables and adjusted for the same covariates as Model 1
CI Confidence Interval, HG Handgrip strength, PPT Purdue Pegboard Test
aThe total number of subjects analyzed was 207