| Literature DB >> 33072714 |
Jenny Roe1, Andrew Mondschein2, Chris Neale1, Laura Barnes3, Medhi Boukhechba3, Stephanie Lopez2.
Abstract
The benefits of walking in older age include improved cognitive health (e.g., mental alertness, improved memory functioning) and a reduced risk of stress, depression and dementia. However, research capturing the benefits of walking among older people in real-time as they navigate their world is currently very limited. This study explores cognitive health and well-being outcomes in older people as they walk in their local neighborhood environment. Residents from an independent living facility for older people (mean age 65, n = 11) walked from their home in two dichotomous settings, selected on the basis of significantly different infrastructure, varying levels of noise, traffic and percentage of green space. Employing a repeated-measures, cross over design, participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups, and walked on different days in an urban busy "gray" district (a busy, built up commercial street) vs. an urban quiet "green" district (a quiet residential area with front gardens and street trees). Our study captured real-time air quality and noise data using hand-held Airbeam sensors and physiologic health data using a smart watch to capture heart rate variability (a biomarker of stress). Cognitive health outcome measures were a pre- and post-walk short cognitive reaction time (SRT) test and memory recall of the route walked (captured via a drawn mental map). Emotional well-being outcomes were a pre- and post-walk mood scale capturing perceived stress, happiness and arousal levels. Findings showed significant positive health benefits from walking in the urban green district on emotional well-being (happiness levels) and stress physiology (p < 0.05), accompanied by faster cognitive reaction times post-walk, albeit not statistically significant in this small sample. Cognitive recall of the route varied between urban gray and urban green conditions, as participants were more likely to rely on natural features to define their routes when present. The environmental and physiologic data sets were converged to show a significant effect of ambient noise and urban conditions on stress activation as measured by heart rate variability. Findings are discussed in relation to the complexity of combining real-time environmental and physiologic data and the implications for follow-on studies. Overall, our study demonstrates the viability of using older people as citizen scientists in the capture of environmental and physiologic stress data and establishes a new protocol for exploring relationships between the built environment and cognitive health in older people.Entities:
Keywords: air pollution; cognitive health; noise pollution; stress; urban green space; wearable sensors
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33072714 PMCID: PMC7538636 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.575946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Experimental protocol for each testing day. Note: participants walk condition was counterbalanced between days.
Percentage landcover for “gray” and “green” walks.
| Non-building impervious | 74% | 48% |
| Non-tree vegetation | 2% | 16% |
| Tree canopy | 9% | 25% |
| Building impervious | 15% | 11% |
Figure 2Aerial view of the two walking routes.
Figure 3The urban busy “gray” walk.
Figure 4The urban quiet “green” walk.
Figure 5Screen shots of the SRT paradigm; participants respond when an X appears in a central white box.
Participant demographics.
| 57–77 years | 64.8 years | |
| Male | 6 | 54.5% |
| Female | 5 | 45.5% |
| White | 8 | 72.2% |
| African-American | 2 | 18.2% |
| Mixed race | 1 | 9.1% |
| Registered disabled | 7 | 63.6% |
| Not registered disabled | 4 | 34.4% |
| Yes | 3 | 27.3% |
| No | 8 | 72.7% |
| Living very comfortably | 1 | 9.1% |
| Living a little comfortably | 1 | 9.1% |
| Living OK | 2 | 18.2% |
| Living little difficultly | 5 | 45.5% |
| Living very difficulty | 2 | 18.2% |
| None at all | 1 | 9.1% |
| Primary school | 3 | 27.3% |
| Secondary school | 2 | 18.2% |
| Tertiary (college/university) | 5 | 45.5% |
Means and ranges for AirBeam measured PM2.5 (μg/m3) and dB levels during walks.
| Particulate matter (PM2.5) | Day 1 | Urban gray | 15.85 | 1.94–35.28 | −4.06*** (−0.848) |
| Urban green | 19.91 | 2.57–28.23 | |||
| Day 2 | Urban gray | 9.88 | 0.86–25.21 | 1.28* (0.383) | |
| Urban green | 8.60 | 1.03–13.49 | |||
| Noise level (dB) | Day 1 | Urban gray | 75.19 | 58.82–87.05 | 5.20*** (1.157) |
| Urban green | 69.99 | 59.39–84.91 | |||
| Day 2 | Urban gray | 72.15 | 59.19–86.46 | 2.98*** (0.640) | |
| Urban green | 69.17 | 58.88–81.59 |
Mean difference between Urban Gray and Urban Green measures for given day and measure are significantly different at: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Psychological outcomes for subjective wellbeing outcomes (standard deviations in parentheses).
| 27.45 (5.47) | 25.9 (6.15) | |
| Hedonic tone: urban gray | 26.6 (3.5) | 26.8 (3.85) |
| Hedonic tone: urban green | 24.91 (4.85) | 27.27 (4.84) |
| Stress: urban gray | 14.7 (4.81) | 14.6 (4.74) |
| Stress: urban green | 16.55 (5.36) | 13 (4.05) |
| Arousal: urban gray | 23.9 (3.96) | 24.9 (3.96) |
| Arousal urban green | 23 (4.27) | 25.27 (3.69) |
| Urban gray | 436.36 (155.88) | 459.1 (122.01) |
| Urban green | 427.11 (95.85) | 412.64 (134.3) |
SWEMWBS scores range between 7 and 35; all three MACL outcome scores range between 8 and 32.
Figure 6UWIST MACL change scores for each output; change scores generated from post-walk – pre-walk scores of each MACL output.
Figure 7Changes to Short Cognitive Reaction time (ms) pre and post walks. Urban gray shows an increased reaction time while urban green shows decreased reaction time both post-walk.
Cognitive map assessments by participant.
| Usability | Urban gray | 2.8 |
| Urban green | 2.7 | |
| Accuracy | Urban gray | 3.4 |
| Urban green | 3.3 | |
| Network quality | Urban Gray | 3.1 |
| Urban green | 3.2 | |
| Waypoints | Urban gray | 0.7 |
| Urban green | 1.6 | |
| Natural features | Urban gray | 0.0 |
| Urban green | 0.2 |
Usability - Could the map objectively be used to give directions to another person? (1 to 5).
Accuracy - Does the map conform to the actual geography of the route? North does not need to be up (1 to 5).
Network - How refined is the network? A highly refined network would label streets, show routing, and use additional streets for context (1 to 5).
Waypoints - How many discernable waypoints (landmarks between origin and destination) does the map include? (Count).
Nature - How many waypoints representative of nature? (Count).
Figure 8Heart rate variability difference post walk in the “green” vs. “gray” condition. HRV is represented by the Root Mean Square of the Successive Differences (RMSSD). Note: a lower heart rate variability indicates higher cardiac activation and higher stress.
Associations Between Environmental Conditions and Physiological Responses by Urban Setting (Green vs. Gray).
| Urban gray (vs. Urban green) | −2.1689*** | 16.8136*** | −2.0007*** |
| dB | 0.0929* | ||
| Urban gray x dB | −0.2609*** | ||
| PM2.5 | −0.1421*** | ||
| Urban gray x PM2.5 | 0.03904 | ||
| Intercept | 9.8012*** | 1.70934 | |
| Intercept | 1.5690 | 2.4972 | 2.3919 |
| Residuals | 8.3229 | 7.4065 | 7.3910 |
| AIC | 9,293.247 | 36,207.37 | 36,184.46 |
| BIC | 9,313.959 | 36,246.8 | 36,223.89 |
| 5,284 | 5,284 | ||
Coefficients are significantly different at: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Model 1: Interaction between urban conditions and HRV; Model 2: Interaction effect of dB and urban conditions on HRV; Model 3; Interaction effect of PM.
Figure 9Heart rate variability (RMSSD) by “green” vs. “gray” condition over observed values of dB and PM2.5 Note: a lower heart rate variability indicates higher cardiac activation and higher stress.