ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Influence of cognitive function on postural control in physically independent older women: a time and time-frequency domain analysis.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeThis study examined whether different levels of cognitive impairment influence postural control (PC) in physically independent older women, using complementary time domain and time-frequency analyses. Understanding these associations may help identify early markers of cognitive vulnerability and guide preventive strategies aimed at reducing fall risk in aging.
methodsA cross-sectional sample of 129 women aged ≥ 60 years (mean age 69), physically independent and not engaged in structured exercise for at least three months, was categorized into three groups according to Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores: normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and advanced cognitive impairment (ACI). PC was assessed through time domain variables, mean sway velocity (anteroposterior and mediolateral) and the area of the center of pressure (A-COP), and through time-frequency parameters categorized into low (0.05-0.5 Hz; visual-vestibular contribution), medium (0.5-1.5 Hz; cerebellar modulation), and high (1.5-10 Hz; proprioceptive contribution) frequency bands. Confirmatory analyses for the primary conditions (BSEO and BIUS) were performed using ANCOVA adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and Falls Efficacy Scale (FES) scores. Exploratory outcomes were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, followed by Sidak-adjusted post hoc tests. Effect sizes were estimated using partial eta squared.
resultsTime domain analyses showed that women with better cognitive performance demonstrated better postural control, reflected by lower sway velocity, particularly in the BSEO and BIUS conditions. Exploratory analyses also identified group differences in the BIVR condition. Although the time-frequency analyses did not reveal statistically significant differences between groups, the descriptive patterns suggested that lower-frequency components were more evident during less demanding tasks, whereas medium and high frequency components appeared more prominent in more challenging conditions. Effect-size estimates supported the clinical relevance of time domain differences between cognitive groups.
conclusionCognitive status influences postural control in physically independent older women. Time domain measures, particularly sway velocity, were sensitive to poorer balance among those with cognitive impairment, while time-frequency parameters did not differentiate cognitive groups. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating cognitive screening into balance assessment and fall-prevention strategies in aging populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.