The objectives of this pilot study were to analyze the electromyography (EMG) activity of masseter and anterior temporalis muscles during chewing in 2 different posture conditions: natural head posture (NHP) and maximum yet comfortable forward head posture (FHP) in healthy individuals; and to compare EMG activity between subjects based on their NHP during chewing. Methods: Fifteen subjects participated. Sagittal head posture in sitting position was clinically assessed using a plumb line. Participants were classified as having FHP or upright head posture (UP). Surface EMG was used to evaluate superficial masseter and anterior temporalis bilaterally during chewing in NHP and FHP. Three trials with five chewing cycles were recorded. EMG data were normalized using a maximum voluntary contraction. An independent t-test was used to calculate differences between sides. If no differences were found, both sides were analyzed together. To analyze differences between the 2 conditions, a paired t-test was used. Independent t-test was used to calculate difference between subjects with UP and FHP. Results: A significant increase in muscle activity was found for masseter muscle in the FHP condition. No differences were found in muscle activity in natural head position by posture classification. A trend of increased activity was observed for masseter and temporalis muscles during chewing in FHP. Conclusion: Head and neck posture was found to influence masticatory muscle activity during the function of chewing. The results of this study may help clinicians to better understand the association between head and neck posture alterations with masticatory muscles related disorders.

Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (DM2) affects 9.3% of the U.S. population. Health disparities are evident in DM2; twice as many Hispanics as non-Hispanic Whites have DM2. The objective of this study was to pilot test the feasibility of implementing and evaluating trends of nutrition and exercise interventions to improve diabetes management and physical function in 29 disadvantaged older Hispanics with DM2. We delivered combined diet and exercise (n = 8) and diet-only (n = 6) interventions and compared the results to a control/no intervention group (n = 15). We cluster-randomized the participants into the three arms based on the senior center they attended. The interventions were delivered twice a week for 3 months (24 sessions) and assessments were conducted pre and post intervention. The results indicate the feasibility of implementing the interventions and slight improvements in both intervention groups compared to the control group. The diet-only group tended to have larger improvements on body composition measures (especially in muscle mass), while the diet + exercise group tended to have larger improvements on physical function (especially in chair stands). There was a high rate of attrition, especially in the diet + exercise group, but those who completed the intervention tended to have improvements in body composition and physical function.

Sedentary behavior is prevalent in older adults. Older adults often underutilize public parks for exercising because the parks do not support their needs and preferences. Engaging older adults on the redesign of parks may help promote active lifestyles. The objectives of this pilot study were to evaluate (1) the effects of wearing augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) glasses on balance; (2) the effects of different virtual walls separating the walking trail from the roadway on older adults’ gait, and (3) the preferences of the participants regarding wall design and other features. The participants were ten older adults (68 ± 5 years) who lived within two miles from the park. Balance and gait were assessed using a force plate and an instrumented mat. It was feasible to use AR with older adults in the park to evaluate features for redesign. Motion sickness was not an issue when using AR glasses, but balance was affected when wearing VR goggles. The area of postural sway increased approximately 25% when wearing AR glasses, and it increased by close to 70% when wearing VR goggles compared to no glasses. This difference is clinically relevant; however, we did not have enough power to identify the differences as statistically significant because of the small sample size and large variability. Different walls did not significantly affect the participants’ gait either because they did not alter the way they walked or because the holograms were insufficiently realistic to cause changes. The participants preferred a transparent wall rather than tall or short solid walls to separate the park from the roadway.

No abstract

Virtual-reality (VR) testing can cause motion sickness and impair safety, especially for older adults, but augmented-reality (AR) may allow the testing of holograms embedded into a mixed-reality environment without the VR impediments. However, wearing AR googles may affect the way people walk, but this possibility has not being tested. The objective of this study was to evaluate if wearing AR googles during gait would affect the kinematics of older adults. Ten older adults (68±5 years), who could walk without assistive devices, participated in this study. The participants walked outdoors in a public park with and without the AR googles. The participants were instrumented inertial movement units to track their kinematics (MTw Awinda trackers, Xsens Technologies B.V., Enschede, the Netherlands). The goal of the study was to assess if simply wearing the googles would affect gait, therefore no holograms were displayed. Ten gait cycles were analyzed and the mean of each subject was used to compare the joint kinematics between the conditions (with vs without googles) using T-tests in SPSS 18. The foot, ankle, knee and hip angles were not different between the conditions (p>0.05), but there were significantly less trunk flexion at 44% of the gait cycle (p=0.035) and less forward head flexion throughout the gait cycle (p=0.023) when the participants were wearing the googles vs. when they were not. The findings indicate that wearing AR goggles changed the trunk and head posture cycle, but did not affect the lower limb kinematics during gait.