Age-Related Decline in Anticipatory Motor Planning and Its Relation to Cognitive and Motor Skill Proficiency

Abstract

Anticipatory motor planning abilities mature as children grow older, develop throughout childhood and are likely to be stable till the late sixties. In the seventh decade of life, motor planning performance dramatically declines, with anticipatory motor planning abilities falling to levels of those exhibited by children. At present, the processes enabling successful anticipatory motor planning in general, as do the cognitive processes mediating these age-related changes, remain elusive. Thus, the aim of the present study was (a) to identify cognitive and motor functions that are most affected by normal aging and (b) to elucidate key (cognitive and motor) factors that are critical for successful motor planning performance in young (n = 40, mean age = 23.1 ± 2.6 years) and older adults (n = 37, mean age = 73.5 ± 7.1 years). Results indicate that normal aging is associated with a marked decline in all aspects of cognitive and motor functioning tested. However, age-related declines were more apparent for fine motor dexterity, processing speed and cognitive flexibility. Furthermore, up to 64% of the variance in motor planning performance across age groups could be explained by the cognitive functions processing speed, response planning and cognitive flexibility. It can be postulated that anticipatory motor planning abilities are strongly influenced by cognitive control processes, which seem to be key mechanisms to compensate for age-related decline. These findings support the general therapeutic and preventive value of cognitive-motor training programs to reduce adverse effects associated with high age.

Motor planning of vertical arm movements in healthy older adults: does effort optimization persist with aging?

“…The present results add to the existing literature suggesting that motor planning is modified with aging (Kanekar and Aruin 2014;Kubicki et al 2016;Casamento-Moran et al 2017;Wunsch et al 2017;Stöckel et al 2017). Neuroscientists have first interpreted motor planning modifications as a deterioration of feedforward processes (proactive strategies) that urges older adults to favor feedback processes (reactive strategies).…”

“…For example, previous studies have shown that motor planning adapts reaching trajectories to changing inertial and gravitational constraints in young adults (Gaveau and Papaxanthis 2011;Vu et al 2016a). There are pieces of evidence suggesting that aging alters motor planning (Kanekar and Aruin 2014;Kubicki et al 2016;Casamento-Moran et al 2017;Wunsch et al 2017;Stöckel et al 2017), and that altered motor planning may cause falls (Lord and Fitzpatrick 2001;Lyon and Day 2005;Robinovitch et al 2013;Tisserand et al 2016). Since fall is inherently linked to gravity, understanding how older adults adapt their motor planning to gravity is crucial.…”

End‐state comfort in two object manipulation tasks: Investigating how the movement context influences planning in children, young adults, and older adults

“…Nevertheless, inconsistent findings exist regarding when skills are adult‐like in nature (Wunsch et al, ). Observing the other end of the developmental lifespan, three recent studies exploring changes with aging highlight negative developmental trends, such that a decrease in the end‐state comfort effect is attributed to cognitive decline (Scharoun, Gonzalez, Roy, Bryden, ; Stöckel, Wunsch, & Hughes, ; Wunsch, Weigelt, & Stöckel, ).…”

Constraints on motor planning across the life span: Physical, cognitive, and motor factors.

“…This ability to plan for ESC, although present at an early age (Stöckel & Hughes, 2016;Weigelt & Schack, 2010), has been shown to develop into late childhood (Wilmut & Byrne, 2014b). Recent studies demonstrate a growing interest surrounding the development of motor planning at the other end of the lifespan (Niermeyer, Suchy, & Ziemnik, 2017;Scharoun, Gonzalez, Roy, & Bryden, 2016, 2017Stöckel, Wunsch, & Hughes, 2017;Wunsch, Weigelt, & Stöckel, 2017) and have highlighted a negative developmental trend for ESC planning in late adulthood (Scharoun et al, 2016(Scharoun et al, , 2017Stöckel et al, 2017;Wunsch et al, 2017).…”

“…However, in conditions where an actual grasping of an upturned glass was allowed, older adults' grasp selection for ESC did not differ from young adults. In another thread of research, Stöckel et al (2017) and Wunsch et al (2017) used a bar transport task, which mimics the upturned glass analogy, and considered both a unimanual and a bimanual condition. The number of grasps resulting in ESC was significantly lower in an older-old group (71-86 years) compared to young adults (19-28 years) and a younger-old group (60-70 years), particularly when the task was more demanding and bimanual movements were required.…”