Abstract: BACKGROUND: Individuals with osteoarthritis fall at a greater rate than the general population, likely as a result of weakness, pain, movement limitations, and a decline in balance. Due to the high prevalence of osteoarthritis in the population, understanding the mechanisms leading to greater fall risk is an important issue to better understand. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the influence of unilateral knee osteoarthritis on the characteristics of performing a voluntary step (i.e., similar to that performed to avoid a fall after a perturbation), compared to healthy age-matched controls? METHODS: Case-control study performed in a Health maintenance organization physical therapy clinic. The research group consisted of a referred sample of 21 patients with unilateral knee osteoarthritis. The control group consisted of 22 age-matched healthy individuals. All participants were over 65 years of age. Participants were excluded if they had a surgical procedure to back or lower limb within one year before testing, oncological or neurological disease or a deficit in tactile sense. Movements were performed with and without dual tasking. MEASUREMENTS: Duration of the initiation phase (cue to step initiation), preparatory phase (step initiation to foot off) and swing phase (foot off to foot contact). RESULTS: In the preparatory phase and swing phase, the osteoarthritis group moved more slowly than the control group, and these differences were larger for forward compared to backward movements. Dual-tasking slowed responses in the pre-movement initiation stage across groups. SIGNIFICANCE: The differences in basic parameters, and the slower movements in the osteoarthritis group, are consistent with known features of osteoarthritis, being a disease commonly regarded as primarily “mechanical”, and are likely to increase fall risk. These response deficits suggest we should take advantage of advanced rehabilitation techniques, including cognitive loading, to help prevent falls in older adults with osteoarthritis.

Abstract: Many motor skills, such as typing, consist of articulating simple movements into novel sequences that are executed faster and smoother with practice. Dynamics of re-organization of these movement sequences with multi-session training and its dependence on the amount of self-regulation of pace during training is not yet fully understood. In this study, participants practiced a sequence of key presses. Training sessions consisted of either externally (Cued) or self-initiated (Uncued) training. Long-term improvements in performance speed were mainly due to reducing gaps between finger movements in both groups, but Uncued training induced higher gains. The underlying kinematic strategies producing these changes and the representation of the trained sequence differed significantly across subjects, although net gains in speed were similar. The differences in long-term memory due to the type of training and the variation in strategies between subjects, suggest that the different neural mechanisms may subserve the improvements observed in overall performance.

Abstract: A characteristic of visuomotor tracking of non-regular oscillating stimuli are high-frequency jittery corrective motions, oscillating around the tracked stimuli. However, the properties of these corrective jitter responses are not well understood. For example, does the jitter response show an idiosyncratic signature? What is the relationship between stimuli properties and jitter properties? Is the jitter response similar across effectors with different inertial properties? To answer these questions, we measured participants' jitter frequencies in two tracking tasks in the arm and the finger. Thirty participants tracked the same set of eleven non-regular oscillating stimuli, vertically moving on a screen, once with forward-backward arm movements (holding a tablet stylus) and once with upward-downward index finger movements (with a motion tracker attached). Participants' jitter frequencies and tracking errors varied systematically as a function of stimuli frequency and amplitude. Additionally, there were clear individual differences in average jitter frequencies between participants, ranging from 0.7 to 1.15 Hz, similar to values reported previously. A comparison of individual jitter frequencies in the two tasks showed a strong correlation between participants' jitter frequencies in the finger and the arm, despite the very different inertial properties of the two effectors. This result suggests that the corrective jitter response stems from common neural processes.