Factors underlying age-related changes in discrete aiming

Halewyck, Florian Van; Lavrysen, Ann; Levin, Oron; Boisgontier, Matthieu P.; Elliott, Digby; Helsen, Werner

doi:10.1007/s00221-015-4247-3

Cited by 27 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The task consisted of moving the cursor from the right target to the left target. The aiming movement had an index of difficulty (ID) of 6.2 bits (ID = log2[2 × 18 / (1.5 − 1)]; Fitts 1954) in line with previous work from our group , 2015b.…”

Section: Manual Aiming Tasksupporting

confidence: 57%

“…1a) was identical to the one used in previous studies , 2015a, 2015b. Participants sat in a comfortable chair and wore a wrist hand orthosis on the preferred right forearm.…”

Section: Manual Aiming Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In line with previous work (Van Halewyck et al , 2015aHalewyck et al , 2015b), a first-order, low-pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 20 Hz was applied on the hand position data prior to the calculation of the dependent variables (Lavrysen et al 2007(Lavrysen et al , 2008(Lavrysen et al , 2012Van Halewyck et al 2015a). Filtered data were differentiated twice to obtain instantaneous velocity and acceleration profiles.…”

Section: Manual Aiming Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1a (righthand panel). Reaction time was defined as the time interval between the onset of the GO stimulus and the movement initiation (first sample after the onset of the GO stimulus when the standard deviation of the velocity profile was superior to 0.75 mm/s for 80 ms , 2015a, 2015b. Movement time was defined as the time interval between movement initiation and termination (first sample after the movement initiation when the standard deviation of the velocity profile was inferior to 0.75 mm/s for 80 ms).…”

Section: Manual Aiming Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This outcome is considered to reflect an increased dependence on limb-target control (Lyons et al 1996;Seidler-Dobrin and Stelmach 1998) which possibly allows older adults to achieve the same level of endpoint accuracy as young adults (Boisseau et al 2002;Ketcham et al 2002;Lyons et al 1996;Welsh et al 2007). The increased dependence on limb-target control in older adults may perhaps be explained by a decline in proprioceptive acuity (Adamo et al 2007;Adamo et al 2009;Herter et al 2014;Kokmen et al 1978;Wright et al 2011;see Goble et al 2009, for a review), impaired efficiency of feedback processing (Rand and Stelmach 2011;Stelmach et al 1988;Temprado et al 2013;Van Halewyck et al 2015b), or both. Indeed, well-documented evidence show that agerelated declines in proprioceptive acuity has led many to suggest that visual feedback becomes increasingly important during accurate aiming in older age (e.g., Coats and Wann 2011;Rand and Stelmach 2011;Terrier et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Manual aiming in healthy aging: does proprioceptive acuity make the difference?

Helsen

Halewyck

Levin

et al. 2016

AGE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examines whether nonactive older adults are more dependent on visual information when executing aiming movements and whether age-related declines in proprioception play a mediating role herein. Young (N = 40) and older adults (N = 38) were divided into physically active and non-active subgroups based on self-reported sports participation levels. In experiment 1, participants executed wrist-aiming movements with and without visual feedback. In experiment 2, passive proprioceptive acuity was assessed using wrist motion detection and position matching tests. Results showed similar aiming accuracy across age groups both with and without visual feedback, but older adults exhibited longer movement times, prolonged homing-in phase, and made more corrective submovements. Passive proprioceptive acuity was significantly affected by physical activity level and age, with participants in the active group scoring better than their non-active peers. However, these declines did not predict performance changes on the aiming task. Taken together, our observations suggest that decline in proprioceptive acuity did not predict performance changes on the aiming task and older adults were able to compensate for their decreased motion and position sense when allowed sufficient time. In line with these observations, we proposed that older adults are able to compensate for their decline in proprioception by increasing their reliance on predictive models.

show abstract

Section: Manual Aiming Tasksupporting

confidence: 57%

“…1a) was identical to the one used in previous studies , 2015a, 2015b. Participants sat in a comfortable chair and wore a wrist hand orthosis on the preferred right forearm.…”

Section: Manual Aiming Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Manual Aiming Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Manual Aiming Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Manual aiming in healthy aging: does proprioceptive acuity make the difference?

Helsen

Halewyck

Levin

et al. 2016

AGE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Manual dexterity in young and healthy older adults. 1. Age‐ and gender‐related differences in unimanual and bimanual performance

Vasylenko

Gorecka

Rodríguez‐Aranda

2018

Developmental Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to better characterize age-related differences in dexterity by using an integrative approach where movement times and kinematics were measured for both hands. Forty-five young (age 19-31) and 55 healthy older adults (age 60-88) were evaluated during unimanual and bimanual performance of the Purdue Pegboard Test. Gender effects were also assessed. From video-recorded data, movement times and kinematics were obtained for reaching, grasping, transport, and inserting. Results showed that older adults had longer movement times for grasping and inserting with the right hand, and across all movements with the left hand. Kinematic differences were found in path length, linear, and angular velocity. The patterns of slowing were similar in unimanual and bimanual tasks. Gender effects showed more slowing in older males than older females. Age differences in dexterity not only comprise slowing of movements but also kinematic alterations. The importance of gender in hand function was demonstrated.

show abstract

Age-related changes in force control under different task contexts

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated age-related differences in motor behavior under different task contexts of isometric force control. The tasks involved rapid force production and force maintenance, either separately or in combination. For the combined context, we used Fitts-like tasks, in which we scaled either the force level (D manipulation, i.e., manipulation of the amplitude of the force to be produced) or the tolerance range (W manipulation, i.e., manipulation of the target width in which force is allowed to fluctuate). We studied two age groups and analyzed mainly variables that quantify behavioral variability (SD), information processing (signal-to-noise ratio and efficiency functions), and age-related slowing (slowing ratio). For rapid force control, age-related differences were more pronounced when preplanned processes were primarily involved, that is, in the rapid force production and Fitts-D manipulation tasks. Further, older adults were comparable to the younger adults in terms of end-point variability at the cost of being slower and more variable in timing. For force maintenance control, requiring mainly online control, age-related differences were the most visible in the stabilized phase of Fitts-D manipulation, followed by Fitts-W manipulation for SD, and then the force maintenance task. In sum, our findings reveal an age-related reorganization of how preplanned and online control processes are combined under different force control contexts. Indeed, both behavioral slowing and the overreliance on online control processes seem to be dependent on the task. In this respect, beyond the study of force control, we show the interest of investigating age effects using functionally different tasks.

show abstract

Factors underlying age-related changes in discrete aiming

Cited by 27 publications

References 43 publications

Manual aiming in healthy aging: does proprioceptive acuity make the difference?

Manual aiming in healthy aging: does proprioceptive acuity make the difference?

Manual dexterity in young and healthy older adults. 1. Age‐ and gender‐related differences in unimanual and bimanual performance

Age-related changes in force control under different task contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About