Effects of aquatic physical intervention on fall risk, working memory and hazard-perception as pedestrians in older people

doi:10.21203/rs.2.17880/v1

Download PDF

Research article

Effects of aquatic physical intervention on fall risk, working memory and hazard-perception as pedestrians in older people

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.17880/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 19 Feb, 2020

Read the published version in BMC Geriatrics →

You are reading this older preprint version

Read the latest preprint version →

Background: Normal aging is associated with balance, mobility and working memory decline that increase fall risk and influence activity of daily living functions. Mounting evidence suggests that physical activity is beneficial for decreasing aging effects. The environment in which the physical activity occurs influences the results of the activity. Previous studies have focused on land-based physical activity. Research concerning the aquatic environment is scarce. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of an aquatic physical intervention program on fall risk, working memory and safety of streets–crossing among community-dwelling older individuals.

Methods: Forty-two healthy participants aged 65 or older were divided into one of three intervention groups: aquatic physical intervention (API), on-land physical intervention (OLPI) or non-physical intervention (NPI). The intervention took place from 2018 until 2019 and the protocol included 30-minute sessions twice a week for 12 weeks. Balance, gait and fall risk, working memory abilities and simulated safe streets-crossing were tested. Testing and data collection was conducted at baseline, after six weeks and 12 weeks of intervention.

Results: After six and 12 weeks of intervention, the API group achieved higher improvement on fall-risk score as compared to the NPI group, and both OLPI and NPI groups achieved less improvement on balance score compared to the API group. Additionally, after 12 weeks of intervention, both OLPI and NPI groups scored significantly lower than the API group in verbal and visuospatial working memory tests. Finally, a trend of improvement was found on the hazard-perception as pedestrians test after 12 weeks of intervention only among the API group.

Conclusions: These findings may affect experts working with the elderly population when making decisions concerning therapeutic prevention interventions for the deficiencies of elderly patients. Such interventions may help reduce falling and cognitive deficits, which can lead to decreased injuries and fatalities of older pedestrians. Older adults practicing aquatic physical activity could contribute to their increased safety. Trial registration Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry NCT03510377. Date of registration: 10/31/2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03510377

Geriatrics & Gerontology

gureEffects of aquatic physical intervention on fall risk

working memory and hazard-perception as pedestrians in older people

Normal aging is associated with cognitive decline (1) such as diminished working memory (WM) (2-5), and impairment in motor performance (6) such as reduced balance and mobility (7). These deteriorations in cognitive and motor performance may influence activity of daily living functions, (8) such as safe street crossing. WM is a complex cognitive function that enables goal-directed behavior. It has a limited capacity for storage, update and manipulation of content (9). WM is important for making appropriate road-crossing decisions, such as selecting a safe time to step into oncoming traffic. Balance and mobility decline may lead to an increased risk of falling and fall-related injuries (10-12). Reduced mobility and balance may lead to slower walking speed, imparing ability to cross streets safely due to longer exposure time to traffic (13-14). According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the United States, about 34% of pedestrians injured and about 4% killed in road crashes were elderly individuals (15). Furthermore, up to 50% of all injured pedestrians in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries are elderly individuals (16). In line with these statistics and rising worldwide phenomenon of elderly individuals in the general population (17-18), it is important to find an effective intervention method to improve the safety of elderly people.

Various forms of on-land physical interventions have been found beneficial to promoting WM (19-24) as well as balance and mobility (25-26). As the environment of the physical activity is important to the outcomes of the activity, changing the environment to an aquatic setting may increase the benefits of the intervention (27). An individual immersed in water is exposed to physical forces (specific gravity, thermodynamic and the meta-centric effects) different from those on land due to the density and viscosity of water (28). Immersion improves balancing abilities by increasing the proprioceptive input on the immersed body. Promoting body awareness increases sensory feedback, as resistance to movement through water is greater than resistance to movement through air (28). Therefore, immersion in an aquatic setting provides multi-sensory stimulation, combining three sensory systems: the vestibular, proprioceptive, and tactile, which may help improve balance and coordination (29-30). Yet, there are few studies examining the effects of Aquatic physical intervention (API) on cognitive abilities (32-35) and functional behaviors.
In the present study, we propose a physical intervention method using Tai-Chi and Ai-Chi techniques. Tai-Chi has been used as an effective way of improving motor and cognitive abilities (36-37). Tai-Chi was originally developed as a martial art in China, but has been practiced as a physical exercise, mainly by elderly population, because of its low speed (38). The Ai-Chi method is based on Qigong and Tai-Chi movements (39). Previous studies found improved positive effects of both Ai-Chi and Tai-Chi on static and dynamic equilibrium, fall risk (40) , and positive effects of Ai-Chi on verbal WM ability (33).

Based on the aforementioned studies, the objectives of the present study were: 1.To examine the effects of API for the elderly on balance, mobility, and fall risk compared to identical on-land physical intervention (OLPI) and cognitive non-physical intervention (NPI). 2. To examine the effects of API for the elderly on verbal and visuospatial WM compared to identical OLPI and cognitive NPI. 3. To examine the effects of API for the elderly on simulated hazard-perception as pedestrians to identical OLPI and cognitive NPI.

Design and participants

A total of 42 adults aged 65-89 years (M=74.4 ±6.65) participated in this study. The study population was recruited from elderly day care centers and through social media. All participants were independent. To exclude potential effects of depression and cognitive impairments, participants had to score below 10 on the Geriatric Depression Scale (41) and above 78 on Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS) (42). Other exclusion criteria included: 1. a medical history of neurological, orthopedic or psychiatric conditions causing permanent impairments, 2. the use of drugs that, according to the guidelines of the manufacturer, may cause dizziness, and 3. an absence from intervention exceeding two weeks. All participants who met the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to three intervention groups: 13 participants attended the structured API, 14 participants the structured OLPI, and 15 participants the NPI (Figure 1). Randomization was obtained with the exclusion of two couples (husband and wife) who were randomly allocated to different intervention groups but asked to be in the same group or drop out from the research. One man who was allocated to the aquatic intervention asked not to drive far from his home and was therefore allocated to the structured OLPI group. In the NPI group, five people dropped out of the study. Therefore five additional people were recrouted for this group. As a result, 16.66% of participants were not randomly allocated.

Interventions

The intervention protocol included a 30-minute exercise session conducted twice a week for 12 weeks, for a total of 24 sessions. Four instructors conducted the intervention. All instructors were certified hydrotherapist Ai-Chi instructors or Tai-Chi instructors, and were trained for the intervention protocol to ensure identical intervention in all groups. In addition, a research coordinator followed the research protocol once a week.

API

The Ai-Chi method, based on Qigong and Tai-Chi movements, was selected for the structured API (39). For the present study, 16 movements were used from the Ai-Chi method. The first six movements are more static and symmetrical while the other movements are focused on continuously changing the center of gravity and center of buoyancy. The Ai-Chi intervention was conducted in a hydrotherapy pool (34ºC) approved by the Ministry of Health.

OLPI

For the controlled comparison of the structured on-land motor intervention, we used the 16 identical movements used in the Ai-Chi method.

NPI

Participants in the NPI group practiced guided imagery of the 16 identical movements used in the Ai-Chi method (listening to the instructor’s voice) while sitting on a chair.

Both the OLPI and the NPI were conducted in a quiet room.

Outcome measures:

The Tinetti Balance and Gait test (43): a standardized evaluation of balance and mobility designed to determine risk of falls in the elderly. All items in both balance and mobility sub-tests are scored (0-2). Tinetti scores for risk of falls are: ≤18 points=high risk; 19-23 points=moderate risk; ≥24 points=low risk.
(a) Digit span test forward (DSF) and (b) Digit span test backward (DSB) (44): a verbal WM test through digit recall (45). During the task, a sequence of digits is read by the experimenter and participants are asked to recall the digits in forward or backward order immediately after hearing them. The task starts with a sequence of two digits, and the number of digits per sequence is increased by one if a participant successfully recalls a given sequence length twice. Performance is rated by the number of sequences successfully recalled.
Corsi block-tapping test forward (CBTF) and backward (CBTB) (46) test visuospatial WM. During the task, the participant watches the tester touch a series of blocks, then is asked to touch the blocks in the same order or backward. The task starts with one block, and the number of blocks per sequence is increased by one if the participant successfully recalls a given sequence length twice. Performance is rated by the number of sequences successfully recalled.
Hazard-Perception Test for Pedestrians (HPTP) (47): is a computerized instrument that was designed to efficiently test and train pedestrians with regard to safe crossing and detecting road hazards. A video clip with traffic scenarios, including various approaching hazards, is shown on a screen. Hazard detection (potential hit) is performed by pressing the spacebar on the keyboard whenever a potential hazard is detected. A detection time-frame is calculated for each potential hazard in each clip, which lasts from the moment the potential hazard appears on screen until the moment it would hit the pedestrian. Pressing the spacebar during the detection time frame signals the HPTP software that a potential hazard is detected. Each detection time frame is divided into five equal segments, and the detection score depends on the segment during which the spacebar is pressed. Scores for each potential hazard detection range from 5 (highest) to 0 (lowest), so that pressing the spacebar during the first detection time-frame segment receives a full score (5), during the second segment 80% of the full score (4), and so on. Pressing the spacebar before or after the detection time frame produces no score (0). The final score for each clip is calculated as the sum of scores divided by the number of potential hazards in that clip. The test consists of 10 clips for each scenario. The HPTP software presents the clips in random order.

Testing conducted at baseline, after six weeks and after 12 weeks of intervention by two qualified occupational therapists and one qualified learning disability teacher who were trained to perform the test protocol. All members of the professional team involved in evaluating participants were blind to the intervention group to which participants were allocated.

Statistical analyses

All analyses were performed using IBM-SPSS v.23 (IBM-SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp., USA). A two-sided p-value≤0.05 is considered statistically significant. A chi-square test of goodness-of-fit was performed to determine goodness of fit of bio-demographic parameters between the three intervention groups. A One-way ANOVA analysis was conducted to ascertain that the participants did not differ in the experimental parameters measured between groups at the beginning of the intervention.

To test the effect of each intervention program on the experimental parameters measured in the current experiment, relative change between time measurements in each parameter was calculated. The effect of the Intervention programs was calculated by extracting the differences in the scores between the baseline measurement and six or 12 weeks of intervention in each parameter. To test whether the difference in scores between time periods varied between intervention group a One-way ANOVA analysis was conducted following with Tukey post hoc test.

There were no statistical differences between intervention groups in all bio-demographic variables (Table 1) and all measured parameters at base-line (Table 2(.

The differences in Tinetti balance scores between the baseline measurement and after 12 weeks of intervention between the groups were significant (F(2,1)=10.03, p<0.001), the API group (M=1.385, SD=0.76), the OLPI group (M=0.357, SD=1) and the NPI group (M=-0.133, SD=0.91). Tukey Post Hoc tests showed that both OLPI group and NPI groups improved significantly less than the API group (Figure 2.a).

The differences in Tinetti balance scores between the baseline measurement and after six weeks of intervention between the groups were significant (F(2,1)=6.00, p< 0.05), the API group (M=0.846, SD=0.80), the OLPI group (M=0.071 , SD=1), and the NPI group (M=0.66, SD=0.74). Tukey Post hoc tests showed that both OLPI and NPI groups scored significantly lower than the API group (Figure 3.a).

The differences in Tinetti gait scores between the baseline measurement and after 12 weeks of intervention between the groups were not significant (F(2,1)=0.52, n.s).

The differences in fall risk scores between the baseline measurement and after 12 weeks of intervention between the groups were significant (F(2,1)=5.62, p0>.05), the API group (M=1.69, SD=1.03), the OLPI group (M=0.50, SD=1.45), and the NPI group (M=0.06, SD =1.38). Tukey Post hoc tests showed that the NPI group scored significantly lower than the API group. The OLPI and NPI groups did not differ significantly (Figure 2.b).

The differences in Fall risk scores between the baseline measurement and after six weeks of intervention between the groups were significant (F(2,1)=4.06, p<0.05), the API group M=1.07, SD=1.25), the OLPI group (M=0.26, SD=1.09), and the NPI group (M=-0.07, SD=0.82). Tukey Post hoc tests showed that the NPI group scored significantly lower than the API group, and the OLPI group did not score significantly lower than the API group. However, the OLPI and NPI groups did not differ significantly (Figure 3.b).

The differences in DSF scores between the baseline measurement and after 12 weeks of intervention between the groups were significant (F(2,1)=8.85, p<0.001), the API group (M=0.214, SD=0.80), the OLPI group (M=1.84, SD=1.06), and the NPI group (M=0.26, SD=1.34). Tukey Post hoc tests showed that both OLPI group and NPI groups scored significantly lower than the API group. However, the OLPI and NPI groups did not differ significantly (Figure 2.c).

The differences in DSF scores between the baseline measurement and after six weeks of intervention between the groups were significant (F(2,1)= 6.20, p<0.05), the API group (M=1.23, SD=0.92), the OLPI group (M=0.07, SD=0.99), and the NPI group (M=-0.33, SD=1.54). Tukey Post hoc tests showed that the OLPI and NPI groups scored significantly lower than the API group. However, the OLPI group and NPI groups did not differ significantly (Figure 3.c).

The differences in DSB scores between the baseline measurement and after 12 weeks of intervention between the groups were not significant (F(2,1)=1.437, n.s), the API group (M=0.92, SD=1.11), the OLPI group (M=-0.07 , SD=1.2), and the NPI group (M=0.33, SD=2.02) (Figure 2.d).

The differences in DSB scores between the baseline measurement and after six weeks of intervention between the groups were not significant (F(2,1)=1.882, n.s), the API group (M=0.769, SD=1.16), the OLPI group (M=0.21, SD=1.05), and the NPI group (M=0.00, SD=1.00) (Figure 3.d).

The differences in CBTF scores between the baseline measurement and after 12 weeks of intervention between the groups were significant (F(2,1)=3.54, p<0.05), the API group (M=1.07, SD=1.03) , the OLPI group (M=0.000, SD=1.17), and the NPI group (M=0.66, SD=1.27). Tukey post hoc tests showed that both the OLPI and NPI groups scored significantly lower than the API group. However, the OLPI and NPI groups did not differ significantly (Figure 2.e).

The differences in CBTF scores between the baseline measurement and after six weeks of intervention between the groups were not significant (Figure 3.d).

The differences in CBTB scores between the baseline measurement and after 12 weeks of intervention between the groups were significant (F(2,1)=6.50, p<0.05), the API group (M=0.923, SD=0.862), the OLPI group (M=0.142, SD=1.09), and the NPI group (M=-0.467, SD=1.06). Tukey Post Hoc tests showed that the API group scored significantly higher than the NPI group but not from the OLPI. However, the OLPI and NPI groups did not differ significantly (Figure 2.f).

The differences in CBTB scores between the baseline measurement and after six weeks of intervention between the groups were marginally significant (F(2,1)=31.9, p=0.052), the API group (M=0.461, SD=0.77), the OLPI group (M=-0.57, SD=1.45), and the NPI group (M=-0.53, SD=1.24) . Tukey post hoc tests showed that both the OLPI and NPI groups scored marginally significantly lower than the API group. However, the OLPI and NPI groups did not differ significantly (Figure 3.f).

The differences in HPTP scores between the baseline measurement and after 12 weeks of intervention between the groups were marginally significant (F(2,1)=3.13, p=0.055), the API group (M=0.39, SD=0.50), the OLPI group (M=0.19, SD=0.59), and the NPI group (M=-0.32, SD=1.11). Tukey post hoc tests showed that the difference between the API group (M=0.39, SD=0.50) and the NPI group (M=-0.32, SD =1.11) are marginally significant. The other contrasts did not show significant differences between groups (Figure 4).

The first aim of the present study was to assess whether API, OLPI or NPI induced different effects on balance, gait and fall risk in older adults.
We found that after six and 12 weeks of intervention the API group achieved higher improvement on fall risk score as compared to the NPI group. Previous studies have found that the effect of OLPI such as Tai-Chi on fall risk was promising but inconclusive (48-51). Our results suggest that the Ai-Chi method has a faster and better effect on fall risk as compared to NPI. Therefore, in cases of limited time or budget, the Ai-Chi method is recommended as a more economic intervention for fall prevention.

As poor balance function is a risk factor for falls, previous studies have found that Tai-Chi practice can improve balance function (48). However, we found that after six and 12 weeks of intervention, both OLPI and NPI groups achieved less improvement on balance compared to the API group. These results are in line with a previous study that found improvement in both static and dynamic balance in older people after 12 weeks of Ai-Chi program (40) and expand their findings to only six weeks of intervention. A possible explanation for the difference between OLPI to API may be the environmental uniqueness of the aquatic environment that provides additional resistance for developing balance reactions. The increased multisensory stimulation, induced by the viscosity and the turbulence of water (52) along with the extended time for balance correction in water, help increase the degree of response variability required for movement control during unstable conditions (53). Thus, practices in water may assist balance control on-land in spite of the different environment.

In regards to gait, no differences were found between the intervention groups after six or 12 weeks of intervention. However, more than 80% of all participants scored the best possible score of this measure at baseline. Therefore, we believe that a ceiling effect has occurred, and future studies should consider a more sensitive tool for measuring gait among elderly.

The second goal of the present study was to assess whether API, OLPI or NPI induced differential effects on verbal and visuospatial WM in older adults. We found that after 12 weeks of intervention, both OLPI and NPI group scored significantly lower than the API group on the DSF test (verbal WM) and on CBTF test (visuospatial WM). No difference was found between the intervention groups in the DSB test and only the NPI group scored significantly lower than the API group after 12 weeks of intervention on CBTB test. The forward span assesses the ability to maintain verbal information for a brief period of time (remembering digits sequence) while the backward span requires both maintenance of information and manipulation of the items (remembering and reversing the digits sequence) (54). Thus, it can be argued that the backward span is more complicated task.

WM performances are affected by age, especially in tasks requiring visuospatial information processing (55). Previous studies among older adults showed positive effects of physical intervention on WM (19-20). However, most of these studies report a positive relation between aerobic exercise and improve memory function (56-57). Tai-Chi is considered to be a low-intensity exercise (58-59). Ai-Chi is performed in warm water and has the advantages of the aquatic environment. In warm water, the heart rate rises, contributing to a further rise in cardiac-output (28). Previous studies have found that water immersion increases both the rate and volume of blood-flow to the brain (60-61). Thus, the increase in WM, as measured by the DSF and CBTF and CBTB tests, may be caused by the effects of water immersion, leading to improved brain function.

The third goal of the present study was to assess whether aquatic physical, on-land physical or non-physical interventions induced differential effects on hazard-perception in older adults. We found a trend of improvement on the HPTP score after 12 weeks of intervention only among the API group. Safe walking and road-crossing demand cognitive and motor skills such as allocation of attention resources, estimation of speed and distance, WM and coordination of numerous sub-tasks (62-63). Additionally, safe road-crossing requires a hazard-perception which enables anticipation of dangerous situations on the road ahead (64-65). Strengthening motor, cognitive and hazard-perception abilities demonstrates a bottom-up approach to safe road-crossing, an essential skill required for participation in every-day life (66-67).

This study should be viewed in light of its limitations. Specifically, given its small sample size, caution is advised before generalizing the results. In addition, 16.66% of participants were not randomly allocated. Moreover, since an aquatic NPI group was not included in this study, it is unclear whether the outcomes are related to either the activity within the aquatic environment or to the immersion itself. Finally, while our study examined the effects of activities after 12 weeks, no long-term effects were examined. Thus, future studies should test long term effects.

We demonstrated that API is beneficial for decreasing fall risk, while improving balance, verbal and visuospacial WM. In addition, a trend of improvement in hazard-perception was found. Our results indicate that API may help to promote save road-crossing, however this should be examined in real life situations. Future studies should also test its effects on brain activity for better understanding of the neuronal mechanism underline these changes.
The findings and conclusions of the research may affect clinicians working with the elderly when making decisions concerning therapeutic prevention interventions for healthy elderly. Such interventions may help reduce falling and cognitive deficits, which in turn, could reduce injuries and fatalities of older pedestrians.

WM: working memory

API: Aquatic physical intervention

OLPI: On-land physical intervention

NPI: Non-physical intervention

DSF: Digit span test forward

DSB: Digit span test backward

CBTF: Corsi block-tapping test forward

CBTB: Corsi block-tapping backward

HPTP: Hazard-perception test for pedestrians

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study has been approved by the Sheba IRB-Helsinki Committee (No. 4069-17-SMC) and by the Ethic Committee at Tel-Aviv University (No. 0000275-2). Written consent was obtained from each participant.

Consent for publication

“Not applicable”

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Funding

The study is funded by the Israel Science, Technology and Space Ministry (Grant No. 3-13606).

Authors' contributions

MN contributed to study conception and design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing and final approval of the manuscript. ALA contributed to study design, revising of the draft for important intellectual content, and final approval of the manuscript. GT contributed to study design, revising the draft for important intellectual content, and final approval of the manuscript. CB contributed to study conception and design, and final approval of the manuscript. YB contributed to study conception and design, and final approval of the manuscript. YS contributed to study conception and design, and final approval of the manuscript. JG contributed to data analysis and final approval of the manuscript. NR contributed to study conception and design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing and final approval of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the following individuals for all their contributions:
Ariel Levy, Salah Nashef, Anat Lazic Dor, and Mary Kadmon for the interventions.
We also with to thank the Reich Center, a community center for the elderly population.

Kirova AM, Bays RB, Lagalwar S. Working memory and executive function decline across normal aging, mild cognitive impairment, and Alzheimer's disease. BioMed Res. Int. 2015;748212.
Fournet N, Roulin JL, Vallet F, Beaudoin M, Agrigoroaei S, Paignon A, et al. Evaluating short-term and working memory in older adults: French normative data. Aging Ment Health. 2012;16:922–930. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2012.674487.
Fiore F, Borella E, Mammarella IC, De Beni R. Age differences in verbal and visuo-spatial working memory updating: evidence from analysis of serial position curves. Memory. 2012;20:14–27. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2011.628320
Craik FIM, Luo L, Sakuta Y. Effects of aging and divided attention on memory for items and their contexts. Psychol. Aging, 2010;25:968–979. doi: 10.1037/a0020276
Iachini T, Iavarone A, Senese VP, Ruotolo F, Ruggiero G. Visuospatial memory in healthy elderly, AD and MCI: a review. Curr. Aging Sci. 2009;2:43–59. doi: 10.2174/1874609810902010043
Seidler RD, Bernard JA, Burutolu TB, Fling BW, Gordon MT, Gwin JT, Lipps DB. Motor control and aging: links to age-related brain structural, functional, and biochemical effects. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2010;34:721-733.
doi:1016/j.neubiorev.2009.10.005
Buchman AS, Boyle PA, Wilson RS, Fleischman DA, Leurgans S, Bennett DA. Association between late-life social activity and motor decline in older adults. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1139–46.
Rogers MW, Mille ML. Lateral stability and falls in older people. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2003;31:182-187.
Baddeley AD, Hitch GJ. Working memory. In: The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (ed Bower GH). 8:47–89, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1974.
Lord SR, Clark RD. Simple physiological and clinical tests for the accurate prediction of falling in older people. Gerontology.1996;42:199–203. doi:10.1159/000213793.
Maki BE, Holliday PJ, Topper AK. A prospective study of postural balance and risk of falling in an ambulatory and independent elderly population. J. Gerontol. 1994;49:72-84
Rubenstein LZ, Josephson KR. The epidemiology of falls and syncope. Clin Geriatr Med. 2002;18:141-158.
Sungyop K, Gudmundur FU. Traffic safety in an aging society: Analysis of older pedestrian crashes, Journal of Transportation Safety & Security. 2018; doi: 1080/19439962.2018.1430087
Oxley J, Fildes BN. Safety of older pedestrians: Strategy for future research and action initiatives (Report No. 157). Melbourne: Monash University, Monash University Accident Research Centre. 1999.
Traffic Safety Facts 2015: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. US Washington, DC. 2015.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812384. Accessed 1 May 2018.
Pedestrian Safety, Urban Space and Health. Forum International des Transports, 2012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/25186752. Accessed 1 May 2018.
Older Americans Month. US Census Bureau. 2015.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/cb17-ff08.pdf. Accessed 18 July 2019.
Elderly population (indicator). OECD. 2018.
doi: 10.1787/8d805ea1-en
Gajewski PD, Falkenstein M. Physical activity and neurocognitive functioning in aging - a condensed updated review, European Review of Aging and Physical Activity. 2016;13(1):1.
Smith PJ, Blumenthal JA, Hoffman BM et al. Aerobic exercise and neurocognitive performance: a meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials, Psychosomatic Medicine. 2010;72(3):239–252.
Hillman CH, Erickson KI, Kramer AF. Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise effects on brain and cognition, Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2008;9:58–65. doi:10.1038/nrn2298
Kramer AF, Bherer L, Colcombe SJ, Dong W, Greenough WT. Environmental influences on cognitive and brain plasticity during aging, Journals of Gerontology—Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2004;59: 940–957. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/59.9.M940
Voss MW, Heo S, Prakash RS, Erickson KI, Alves H, Chaddock L, et al. The influence of aerobic fitness on cerebral white matter integrity and cognitive function in older adults: results of a one-year exercise intervention, Human Brain Mapping. 2013;11: 2972–2985. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22119
Logghe IH, Verhagen AP, Rademaker AC, et al. The effects of Tai-Chi on fall prevention, fear of falling and balance in older people: a meta-analysis, Prev Med. 2010;51:222–227.
Buatois S, Gauchard GC, Aubry C, Benetos A, Perrin P. Current physical activity improves balance control during sensory conflicting conditions in older adults, international publication in sports medicine. 2007;28: 53-58. doi: 1055/s-2006-924054
Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Gillespie WJ, Lamb SE, Gates S, Cumming RG, Rowe BH. Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community (Review), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2009;15:CD007146. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007146.pub2.
Smith LB, Thelen E. Development as a dynamic system, Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2003;7:343–348. doi: 1016/S1364-6613(03)00156-6.
Becker BE. Aquatic therapy: Scientific foundations and clinical rehabilitation applications, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2009;1:859-872. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmrj.2009.05.017.
Roth AE, Miller MG, Ricard M, Ritenour D, Chapman BL. Comparisons of static and dynamic balance following training in aquatic and land environments, Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 2006;15:299-311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.15.4.299.
Sato D, Yamashiro K, Onishi H, Shimoyama Y, Yoshida T. Maruyama A. The effect of water immersion on short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials in human, BMC Neuroscience. 2012;13:13-19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-13-13.
Becker BE, Cole AJ. Comprehensive aquatic therapy. 3rd ed. Pullman: Washington State University Publishing; 2011.
Nissim M, Ram-Tsur R, Zion M, Dotan Ben-Soussan T, Mevarech Z. Effects of aquatic motor activities on early childhood cognitive and motor development, Open Journal of Social Sciences. 2014;2:24-39. doi: 4236/jss.2014.212005
Nissim M, Goldstein A, Hutzler Y. A walk on water: Comparing the influence of Ai-Chi and Tai-Chi on fall risk and verbal working memory in aging people with intellectual disabilities, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 2019; 63:603-613. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12602
Nissim M, Ram-Tsur R, Glicksohn J, Zion M, Mevarech Z, Harpaz Y, Dotan Ben-Soussan T. Effects of aquatic motor intervention on verbal working memory and brain activity- A Pilot Study, Mind, Brain and Education. 2018;12:71-81. doi: 10.1111/mbe.12174.
Ram-Tsur R, Nissim M, Zion M, Dotan Ben-Soussan T, Mevarech Z. Language development: The effect of aquatic and on-land motor interventions, Creative Education. 2013;4:41-50. doi: 4236/ce.2013.49B009
Lam LC, Chau RC, Wong BM, Fung AWT, Tam CWC, Leung CTY, et al. A 1-year randomized controlled trial comparing mind body exercise (Tai-Chi) with stretching and toning exercise on cognitive function in older Chinese adults at risk of cognitive decline, Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2012;13:520-568.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2012.03.008.
Taylor-Piliae RE, Newell KA, Cherin R, Lee MJ, King AC, Haskell WL. Effects of Tai-Chi and Western exercise on physical and cognitive functioning in healthy community-dwelling older adults, Journal of the International Society for Aging and Physical Activity. 2010;18: 261-279. doi: https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.18.3.261 .
Li F, Harmer P, Fisher KJ, McAuley E. Tai-Chi: improving functional balance and predicting subsequent falls in older persons, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2004;36:2046-2052. doi: : 10.1249/01.MSS.0000147590.54632.E7 .
Sova R, Konno J. Ai-Chi Balance, Harmony & Healing. 2nd ed. Washington (USA): DSL Ltd.; 2003.
Teixeira R, Pérez L, Lambeck J, Neto F. The influence of Ai-Chi on balance and fear falling in older adults: a randomized clinical trial. Physiotherapy, 2011;97 Supl 1:eS18-eS1415.
Brink TL, Yesavage JA, Lum O, Heersema PH, Adey M, Rose TL. Screening tests for geriatric depression, Clinical Gerontology. 1982;1:37-43.
Teng EL, Chui HC. The Modified Mini Mental State Examination (3MS), J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1987;48:314–318.
Tinetti ME. Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients, Journal of American Geriatric Society. 1986;34:119–126.
Wechsler D. WAIS-R Manual. New York, NY: The Psychological Corporation; 1981.
Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth edition: Technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessment; 2008.
Lezak M. Neuropsychological Assessment. Oxford Univ. Press: New York; 1983.
Rosenbloom T, Mandel R, Rosner Y, Eldror E. Hazard perception test for pedestrians, Accid Anal Prev. 2015;79:160-169. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.019.
Lan C, Chen SY, Lai JS, Wong AMK. Tai-Chi Chuan in medicine and health promotion, Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013. Article ID 502131:1-17.
Leung DPK, Chan CKL, Tsang HWH, et al. Tai-Chi as an intervention to improve balance and reduce falls in older adults: a systematic and meta-analytical review, Altern Ther Health Med. 2011;17:40–8.
Huang ZG, Feng YH, Li YH, Lv CS. Systematic review and meta-analysis: Tai-Chi for preventing falls in older adults, BMJ Open. 2017;7:e013661.
DiPietro L, Campbell WW, Buchner DM, et al. Physical activity, injurious falls, and physical function in aging: an umbrella review, Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(6):1303–13.
Lambeck J, Gamper U. The Halliwick concept. In: Comprehensive Aquatic Therapy (eds BE Becker, AJ Cole), pp. 77–107. Washington State University Press, Pullman, WA, 2011.
Stergiou N, Harbourne RT, Cavanaugh JT. Optimal movement variability: a new theoretical perspective for neurologic physical therapy, Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy. 2006;30:120–9.
Donolato E, Giofrè D, Mammarella Differences in Verbal and Visuospatial Forward and Backward Order Recall: A Review of the Literature, Frontiers in Psychology. 2017;8:663. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00663
Fastame MC, Cavallini E. Working memory functions in the healthy elderly people: The impact of institutionalization and advancing age on amnestic efficiency, Clinical Gerontologist 2011;34(3):207-219. doi: 10.1080/07317115.2011.555909
Flöel A, Ruscheweyh R, Krüger K, Willemer C, Winter B, Völker K, et al. Physical activity and memory functions: are neurotrophins and cerebral gray matter volume the missing link?, Neuroimage. 2010;49:2756–2763. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.043
Erickson KI, Voss MW, Prakash RS, Basak C, Szabo A, Chaddock L, et al. Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011;108:3017–3022. doi:10.1073/pnas.1015950108
Verhagen AP, Immink M, van der Meulen A, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA. The efficacy of Tai-Chi Chuan in older adults: a systematic review, Family Practice. 2004;2:107–13.
Zhang JG, Ishikawa-Takata K, Yamazaki H, Morita T, Ohta T. The effects of Tai-Chi-Chuan on physiological function and fear of falling in the less robust elderly: an intervention study for preventing falls, Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2006;42:107–16.
Carter HH, Spence AL, Pugh CJ, Ainslie PN, Naylor LH, Green DJ. Cardiovascular responses to water immersion in humans: impact on cerebral perfusion, American Journal of Physiology – Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2014;306: 636–40.
Pugh CJA, Sprung VS, Ono K, Spence AL, Thijssen DHJ, Carter HH. The effect of water immersion during exercise on cerebral blood flow, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2015;47:299–306.
Holland C, Hill R. The effect of age, gender and driver status on pedestrians' intentions to cross the road in risky situations, Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2007;39:224-37.
Zivotofsky AZ, Eldror E, Mandel R, Rosenbloom T. Misjudging their own steps why elderly people have trouble crossing the road, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2012;54: 600-607.

Zhuang X, Wu C. Pedestrians’ crossing behaviors and safety at unmarked roadway in China, Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011;43:1927-1936.

Wetton MA, Horswill MS, Hatherly C, Wood JM, Pachana NA, Anstey KJ. The development and validation of two complementary measures of drivers' hazard perception ability, Accid Anal Prev.2010;42:1232-9. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.01.017. Epub 2010 Feb 24.

American Occupational Therapy Associatin. Driving and Community American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(6), 112-124.

Classen S. Special issue on older driver safety and community mobility, American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2010;64:211-214.‏

Table 1

Participants’ demographic variables across intervention groups

	n	OLPI	n	API	n	NPI
	14		13		15
Gender
Male		3(25%)		4(33%)		5(41%)
Female		11(91%)		9(75%)		10(83%)
Family status
Single		2
Married		7		10		5
Widower		3		2		5
Divorce		2		1		4
Other						1

Table 2

Experimental parameters measured between groups at the beginning

	n	OLPI mean(SE)	n	API mean(SE)	n	NPI mean(SE)	Sig.
	14		13		15
Tinetti balance (0-16)		13.6(.53)		13.4(.55)		13.9(51)	n.s
Tinetti gait (0-12)		11.5(.31)		11.5(.32)		11.6(.299)	n.s
Digit span test forward (0-16)		8.7 (.53)		8(.55)		9.6(.513)	n.s
Digit span test backward (0-14)		6.0(.47)		5.5(.49)		6.6(.46)	n.s
Corsi block-tapping test forward (0-16)		6.7(.45)		7(.475)		6.6(.442)	n.s
Corsi block-tapping test backward (0-14)		6.42(.40)		7(.42)		6.2(.39)	n.s
Hazard perception test for pedestrians (0-5)		1.56(.18)		1.38(.18)		1.93(.17)	n.s

Download PDF