Publikation: Examining Different Motor Learning Paradigms for Improving Balance Recovery Abilities among Older Adults : Random versus Block Training - A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial
Dateien
Datum
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Publikationsstatus
Erschienen in
Zusammenfassung
Introduction: Older adults can reduce the risk of falls after participation in a perturbation-based balance training (PBBT). We aimed to compare two perturbation motor learning paradigms: random versus block practice.
Methods: Twenty community-dwelling older adults were recruited and randomly allocated to a random PBBT group (n = 8), participants were exposed to unannounced perturbations in multiple directions during each training session, or a block PBBT group (n = 12) participants experienced perturbations from a single during every training session during treadmill walking. Both groups received eight training sessions over a 4-week period that included a concurrent cognitive task during training. Primary outcome measures were parameters of reactive stepping, i.e., step thresholds in walking and kinematics of reactive stepping during walking, and secondary outcome measures were proactive balance, i.e., voluntary step test and cognitive performance. All outcomes were measured before and after PBBT.
Results: Both PBBT groups improved their ability to cope with higher perturbations post-training and a reduction in center of mass path displacement during the recovery after the perturbation in walking. No improvement was found in voluntary stepping post-training; both groups, however, showed improvement in cognitive performance post-training.
Discussion: Results show some improvements in reactive stepping performance but not in proactive voluntary stepping in both random and block PBBT methods, with no superiority of one training method over the other. Some improvements in cognitive performance in both groups suggest a transfer effect post-training, regardless of training method. Given the small sample size, results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
Zitieren
ISO 690
NACHMANI, Hadas, Inbal PARAN, Moti SALTI, Ilan SHELEF, Noam MARGALIT, Michael SCHWENK, Itshak MELZER, 2025. Examining Different Motor Learning Paradigms for Improving Balance Recovery Abilities among Older Adults : Random versus Block Training - A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial. In: Gerontology. Karger. 2025, 71(8), S. 692-704. ISSN 0304-324X. eISSN 1423-0003. Verfügbar unter: doi: 10.1159/000546907BibTex
@article{Nachmani2025-06-13Exami-74475,
title={Examining Different Motor Learning Paradigms for Improving Balance Recovery Abilities among Older Adults : Random versus Block Training - A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial},
year={2025},
doi={10.1159/000546907},
number={8},
volume={71},
issn={0304-324X},
journal={Gerontology},
pages={692--704},
author={Nachmani, Hadas and Paran, Inbal and Salti, Moti and Shelef, Ilan and Margalit, Noam and Schwenk, Michael and Melzer, Itshak}
}RDF
<rdf:RDF
xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" >
<rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/74475">
<dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/35"/>
<dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2025-09-05T10:17:08Z</dcterms:available>
<dc:creator>Schwenk, Michael</dc:creator>
<dcterms:issued>2025-06-13</dcterms:issued>
<dc:creator>Melzer, Itshak</dc:creator>
<dc:creator>Salti, Moti</dc:creator>
<dc:creator>Nachmani, Hadas</dc:creator>
<dc:contributor>Nachmani, Hadas</dc:contributor>
<dcterms:title>Examining Different Motor Learning Paradigms for Improving Balance Recovery Abilities among Older Adults : Random versus Block Training - A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial</dcterms:title>
<foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
<dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2025-09-05T10:17:08Z</dc:date>
<dc:contributor>Paran, Inbal</dc:contributor>
<dc:contributor>Margalit, Noam</dc:contributor>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Paran, Inbal</dc:creator>
<dc:contributor>Melzer, Itshak</dc:contributor>
<dc:contributor>Schwenk, Michael</dc:contributor>
<bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/74475"/>
<dcterms:abstract>Introduction: Older adults can reduce the risk of falls after participation in a perturbation-based balance training (PBBT). We aimed to compare two perturbation motor learning paradigms: random versus block practice.
Methods: Twenty community-dwelling older adults were recruited and randomly allocated to a random PBBT group (n = 8), participants were exposed to unannounced perturbations in multiple directions during each training session, or a block PBBT group (n = 12) participants experienced perturbations from a single during every training session during treadmill walking. Both groups received eight training sessions over a 4-week period that included a concurrent cognitive task during training. Primary outcome measures were parameters of reactive stepping, i.e., step thresholds in walking and kinematics of reactive stepping during walking, and secondary outcome measures were proactive balance, i.e., voluntary step test and cognitive performance. All outcomes were measured before and after PBBT.
Results: Both PBBT groups improved their ability to cope with higher perturbations post-training and a reduction in center of mass path displacement during the recovery after the perturbation in walking. No improvement was found in voluntary stepping post-training; both groups, however, showed improvement in cognitive performance post-training.
Discussion: Results show some improvements in reactive stepping performance but not in proactive voluntary stepping in both random and block PBBT methods, with no superiority of one training method over the other. Some improvements in cognitive performance in both groups suggest a transfer effect post-training, regardless of training method. Given the small sample size, results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution.</dcterms:abstract>
<dc:contributor>Shelef, Ilan</dc:contributor>
<dc:creator>Shelef, Ilan</dc:creator>
<dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/35"/>
<dc:contributor>Salti, Moti</dc:contributor>
<void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
<dc:creator>Margalit, Noam</dc:creator>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>