TY - JOUR
T1 - Examining Different Motor Learning Paradigms for Improving Balance Recovery Abilities Among Older Adults, Random vs. Block Training—Study Protocol of a Randomized Non-inferiority Controlled Trial
AU - Nachmani, Hadas
AU - Paran, Inbal
AU - Salti, Moti
AU - Shelef, Ilan
AU - Melzer, Itshak
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Copyright © 2021 Nachmani, Paran, Salti, Shelef and Melzer.
PY - 2021/2/25
Y1 - 2021/2/25
N2 - Introduction: Falls are the leading cause of fatal and nonfatal injuries among older adults. Studies showed that older adults can reduce the risk of falls after participation in an unexpected perturbation-based balance training (PBBT), a relatively novel approach that challenged reactive balance control. This study aims to investigate the effect of the practice schedule (i.e., contextual interference) on reactive balance function and its transfer to proactive balance function (i.e., voluntary step execution test and Berg balance test). Our primary hypothesis is that improvements in reactive balance control following block PBBT will be not inferior to the improvements following random PBBT. Methods and Analysis: This is a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Fifty community-dwelling older adults (over 70 years) will be recruited and randomly allocated to a random PBBT group (n = 25) or a block PBBT group (n = 25). The random PBBT group will receive eight training sessions over 4 weeks that include unexpected machine-induced perturbations of balance during hands-free treadmill walking. The block PBBT group will be trained by the same perturbation treadmill system, but only one direction will be trained in each training session, and the direction of the external perturbations will be announced. Both PBBT groups (random PBBT and block PBBT) will receive a similar perturbation intensity during training (which will be customized to participant’s abilities), the same training period, and the same concurrent cognitive tasks during training. The generalization and transfer of learning effects will be measured by assessing the reactive and proactive balance control during standing and walking before and after 1 month of PBBT, for example, step and multiple steps and fall thresholds, Berg balance test, and fear of falls. The dependent variable will be rank transformed prior to conducting the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to allow for nonparametric analysis. Discussion: This research will explore which of the balance retraining paradigms is more effective to improve reactive balance and proactive balance control in older adults (random PBBT vs. block PBBT) over 1 month. The research will address key issues concerning balance retraining: older adults’ neuromotor capacities to optimize training responses and their applicability to real-life challenges. Clinical Trial Registration: Helsinki research ethics approval has been received (Soroka Medical Center approval #0396-16-SOR; MOH_2018-07-22_003536; www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04455607).
AB - Introduction: Falls are the leading cause of fatal and nonfatal injuries among older adults. Studies showed that older adults can reduce the risk of falls after participation in an unexpected perturbation-based balance training (PBBT), a relatively novel approach that challenged reactive balance control. This study aims to investigate the effect of the practice schedule (i.e., contextual interference) on reactive balance function and its transfer to proactive balance function (i.e., voluntary step execution test and Berg balance test). Our primary hypothesis is that improvements in reactive balance control following block PBBT will be not inferior to the improvements following random PBBT. Methods and Analysis: This is a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Fifty community-dwelling older adults (over 70 years) will be recruited and randomly allocated to a random PBBT group (n = 25) or a block PBBT group (n = 25). The random PBBT group will receive eight training sessions over 4 weeks that include unexpected machine-induced perturbations of balance during hands-free treadmill walking. The block PBBT group will be trained by the same perturbation treadmill system, but only one direction will be trained in each training session, and the direction of the external perturbations will be announced. Both PBBT groups (random PBBT and block PBBT) will receive a similar perturbation intensity during training (which will be customized to participant’s abilities), the same training period, and the same concurrent cognitive tasks during training. The generalization and transfer of learning effects will be measured by assessing the reactive and proactive balance control during standing and walking before and after 1 month of PBBT, for example, step and multiple steps and fall thresholds, Berg balance test, and fear of falls. The dependent variable will be rank transformed prior to conducting the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to allow for nonparametric analysis. Discussion: This research will explore which of the balance retraining paradigms is more effective to improve reactive balance and proactive balance control in older adults (random PBBT vs. block PBBT) over 1 month. The research will address key issues concerning balance retraining: older adults’ neuromotor capacities to optimize training responses and their applicability to real-life challenges. Clinical Trial Registration: Helsinki research ethics approval has been received (Soroka Medical Center approval #0396-16-SOR; MOH_2018-07-22_003536; www.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04455607).
KW - balance perturbation training
KW - block training
KW - elderly people
KW - falls
KW - postural balance
KW - random training
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102437891&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fnhum.2021.624492
DO - 10.3389/fnhum.2021.624492
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85102437891
SN - 1662-5161
VL - 15
JO - Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
JF - Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
M1 - 624492
ER -