Tiphanie E Raffegeau1, Grace K Kellaher2, Matthew J Terza3, Jaimie A Roper4, Lori J Altmann5, Chris J Hass6. 1. Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. Electronic address: tiphanie.raffegeau@utah.edu. 2. Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: gkellaher@ufl.edu. 3. Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: mjt023@ufl.edu. 4. Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; School of Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. Electronic address: jar0105@auburn.edu. 5. Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: laltmann@ufl.edu. 6. Department of Applied Physiology and Kinesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: cjhass@aa.ufl.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community ambulation requires the ability to adapt walking patterns to task demands. For example, complex walking tasks, such as obstacle crossing (OBS) and backwards walking (BW), require modification of gait kinematics to complete the task, maintain stability and prevent falling. More women than men fall each year, but few studies have investigated gender differences in performance of adaptive walking tasks. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine gender differences in two common adaptive tasks. METHODS: Walking performance was assessed from 54 age and gender matched participants (72 ± 5 yrs.) while they completed forward walking (FW), OBS and BW. Gait outcomes and the distance of the lead foot and the trail foot from the obstacle were normalized by leg length and assessed using multivariate analysis of variance. Additionally, performance in a battery of clinical physical and cognitive measures as well as self-reported activity levels were associated with adaptive gait behavior. RESULTS: Gait speed and step width were not different between genders in any walking task. Compared to FW and OBS, women only decreased step length in BW, resulting in significantly shorter step lengths than men in OBS (p = 0.02) and BW (p = 0.04), a conservative walking strategy. Women crossed the obstacle in a manner that may limit recovery steps in case of a trip: stepping closer to the obstacle during approach without increasing trail toe-clearance. The Timed Up and Go mobility test, Short Physical Performance Battery, and Trail Making Test of processing speed and executive function were associated with gender differences in adaptive gait patterns. CONCLUSION: The findings revealed that older adult women adapt walking in a way that might predispose them to tripping or falling (i.e. shorter steps and closer obstacle approach). Gender differences in adaptive walking are related to functional test performance and processing speed. Clinicians should consider targeting step length during adaptive walking tasks in women that may be at risk of mobility impairments. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Community ambulation requires the ability to adapt walking patterns to task demands. For example, complex walking tasks, such as obstacle crossing (OBS) and backwards walking (BW), require modification of gait kinematics to complete the task, maintain stability and prevent falling. More women than men fall each year, but few studies have investigated gender differences in performance of adaptive walking tasks. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine gender differences in two common adaptive tasks. METHODS: Walking performance was assessed from 54 age and gender matched participants (72 ± 5 yrs.) while they completed forward walking (FW), OBS and BW. Gait outcomes and the distance of the lead foot and the trail foot from the obstacle were normalized by leg length and assessed using multivariate analysis of variance. Additionally, performance in a battery of clinical physical and cognitive measures as well as self-reported activity levels were associated with adaptive gait behavior. RESULTS: Gait speed and step width were not different between genders in any walking task. Compared to FW and OBS, women only decreased step length in BW, resulting in significantly shorter step lengths than men in OBS (p = 0.02) and BW (p = 0.04), a conservative walking strategy. Women crossed the obstacle in a manner that may limit recovery steps in case of a trip: stepping closer to the obstacle during approach without increasing trail toe-clearance. The Timed Up and Go mobility test, Short Physical Performance Battery, and Trail Making Test of processing speed and executive function were associated with gender differences in adaptive gait patterns. CONCLUSION: The findings revealed that older adult women adapt walking in a way that might predispose them to tripping or falling (i.e. shorter steps and closer obstacle approach). Gender differences in adaptive walking are related to functional test performance and processing speed. Clinicians should consider targeting step length during adaptive walking tasks in women that may be at risk of mobility impairments. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Laura Hak; Han Houdijk; Frans Steenbrink; Agali Mert; Peter van der Wurff; Peter J Beek; Jaap H van Dieën Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2012-03-29 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: I Sánchez-Cubillo; J A Periáñez; D Adrover-Roig; J M Rodríguez-Sánchez; M Ríos-Lago; J Tirapu; F Barceló Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Antonia K Coppin; Anne Shumway-Cook; Jane S Saczynski; Kushang V Patel; Alessandro Ble; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Jennifer C Davis; Stirling Bryan; Linda C Li; John R Best; Chun Liang Hsu; Caitlin Gomez; Kelly A Vertes; Teresa Liu-Ambrose Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2015-07-05 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Bernard Auvinet; Claude Touzard; François Montestruc; Arnaud Delafond; Vincent Goeb Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Tiphanie E Raffegeau; Sarah A Brinkerhoff; Grace K Kellaher; Sidney Baudendistel; Matthew J Terza; Jaimie A Roper; Chris J Hass Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: Sidney T Baudendistel; Abigail C Schmitt; Amanda E Stone; Tiphanie E Raffegeau; Jaimie A Roper; Chris J Hass Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 2.746
Authors: Valkiria Amaya; Thibauld Moulaert; Luc Gwiazdzinski; Nicolas Vuillerme Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 3.390