Discriminative Mobility Characteristics between Neurotypical Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Adults Using Wireless Inertial Sensors

Abstract

Age-related mobility research often highlights significant mobility differences comparing neurotypical young and older adults, while neglecting to report mobility outcomes for middle-aged adults. Moreover, these analyses regularly do not determine which measures of mobility can discriminate groups into their age brackets. Thus, the current study aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis for commonly performed aspects of mobility (walking, turning, sit-to-stand, and balance) to determine which variables were significantly different and furthermore, able to discriminate between neurotypical young adults (YAs), middle-aged adults (MAAs), and older adults (OAs). This study recruited 20 YAs, 20 MAAs, and 20 OAs. Participants came into the laboratory and completed mobility testing while wearing wireless inertial sensors. Mobility tests assessed included three distinct two-minute walks, 360° turns, five times sit-to-stands, and a clinical balance test, capturing 99 distinct mobility metrics. Of the various mobility tests assessed, only 360° turning measures demonstrated significance between YAs and MAAs, although the capacity to discriminate between groups was achieved for gait and turning measures. A variety of mobility measures demonstrated significance between MAAs and OAs, and furthermore discrimination was achieved for each mobility test. These results indicate greater mobility differences between MAAs and OAs, although discrimination is achievable for both group comparisons.

Beyond timing and step counting in 360° turning-in-place assessment: a scoping review

“…Other studies included two [ 58 , 61 , 62 , 66 , 71 , 72 ] or three subjects’ groups [ 60 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 73 – 76 ]. Included groups were PD patients [ 57 – 68 ], stroke patients [ 69 – 72 ], people with multiple sclerosis [ 75 ], older adults [ 58 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 71 – 76 ], frail and pre-frail older adult [ 73 ], older adult fallers [ 76 ], middle-aged adults [ 74 , 75 ], and young adults [ 74 , 77 ] (Table 1 ). In total, the studied population amounted to 1193 subjects (664 males, 510 females).…”

“…Eight studies dealing with one 360° turn-in-place were conducted with an IMU and five with camera systems. The types of kinematic variable were varied, including mainly mean angular velocity [ 69 , 70 , 72 , 73 ], peak angular velocity [ 74 , 75 ], and mean angle [ 74 , 75 ] (Table 2 ). The only three other parameters that were used to quantify turning was turn duration [ 70 , 73 – 75 ], number of turn cycles [ 71 , 72 ], and the number of steps taken to complete the turn [ 58 , 65 ].…”

“…Other studies aiming to discriminate subjects groups via turning-in-place quantification include differentiation between older adults with frailty from those without [ 73 ], neurotypical young adults, middle-aged adults, and older adults [ 74 ], older community-dwelling multiple fallers and non-fallers [ 76 ], neurotypical older adults and middle-aged people with multiple sclerosis [ 75 ], and middle-aged neurotypical adults and people with multiple sclerosis [ 75 ].…”

“…Regarding other subject groups, turn angle-based parameters have been able to distinguish young adults from middle-aged adults [ 74 ], middle-aged adults from older adults [ 74 ], and middle-aged adults from pwMS [ 75 ]; turn duration-based parameters distinguished non-frail older adults from frail [ 73 ], pre-frail older adults from frail [ 73 ], middle-aged adults from older adults [ 74 ], and middle-aged adults from pwMS [ 75 ]; turn velocity-based parameters have distinguished non-frail older adults from frail [ 73 ], pre-frail older adults from frail [ 73 ], young adults from middle-aged adults [ 74 ], middle-aged adults from older adults [ 74 ], middle-aged adults from pwMS [ 75 ]. Measurements of segmental orientation when turning revealed differences between non-fallers and multiple fallers from pelvis onset time, mean head–trunk angle, peak trunk–pelvis angle, mean trunk–pelvis angle [ 76 ].…”

“…If we focus on the parameters utilised in turning-in-place assessment, the most frequently used spatio-temporal parameters were mean [ 69 , 70 , 73 – 75 ] and peak [ 74 , 75 ] values of the measured signals. This is probably because the calculation is simple, and the interpretation is intuitive.…”