The Costs of Taking It Slowly Fast and Slow Movement Timing in Older Age

We investigated adult age differences in timing control of fast vs slow repetitive movements using a dual task approach Twenty two young (M = 24 23 yr) and 22 older adults (M = 66 64 yr) performed three cognitive tasks differing in working memory load and response production demands and they tapped series of 550 ms or 2100 ms target Intervals Single task timing was comparable in both groups Dual task timing was characterized by shortening of produced intervals and increases in drift and variability Dual task costs for both cognitive and timing performances were pronounced at slower tapping tempos an effect exacerbated in older adults Our findings implicate attention and working memory processes as critical components of slow movement timing and sources of specific challenges thereof for older adults

Adaptation and Reintegration of Proprioceptive Information in Young and Older Adults' Postural Control

We investigated age-related changes in adaptation and sensory reintegration in postural control without vision. In two sessions, participants adapted their posture to sway reference and to reverse sway reference conditions, the former reducing (near eliminating) and the latter enhancing (near doubling) proprioceptive information for posture by means of support-surface rotations in proportion to body sway. Participants stood on a stable platform for 3 min (baseline) followed by 18 min of sway reference or reverse sway reference (adaptation) and finally again on a stable platform for 3 min (reintegration). Results showed that when inaccurate proprioception was introduced, anterior-posterior (AP) sway path length increased in comparable levels in the two age groups. During adaptation, young and older adults reduced postural sway at the same rate. On restoration of the stable platform in the reintegration phase, a sizeable aftereffect of increased AP path length was observed in both groups, which was greater in magnitude and duration for older adults. In line with linear feedback models of postural control, spectral analyses showed that this aftereffect differed between the two platform conditions. In the sway-referenced condition, a switch from low- to high-frequency COP sway marked the transition from reduced to normal proprioceptive information. The opposite switch was observed in the reverse sway referenced condition. Our findings illustrate age-related slowing in participants' postural control adjustments to sudden changes in environmental conditions. Over and above differences in postural control, our results implicate sensory reweighting as a specific mechanism highly sensitive to age-related decline.

The addition of arsenic trioxide to low-dose Ara-C in older patients with AML does not improve outcome

Most patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) are older, with many unsuitable for conventional chemotherapy. Low-dose Ara-C (LDAC) is superior to best supportive care but is still inadequate. The combination of arsenic trioxide (ATO) and LDAC showed promise in an unrandomised study. We report a randomised trial of LDAC versus LDAC + ATO. Patients with AML according to WHO criteria or myelodysplastic syndrome with > 10% blasts, considered as unfit for conventional chemotherapy, were randomised between subcutaneous Ara-C (20mg b.d. for 10 days) and the same LDAC schedule with ATO (0.25 mg/kg) on days 1-5, 9 and 11, for at least four courses every 4 to 6 weeks. Overall 166 patients were entered; the trial was terminated on the advice of the DMC, as the projected benefit was not observed. Overall 14% of patients achieved complete remission (CR) and 7% CRi. Median survival was 5.5 months and 19 months for responders (CR: not reached; CRi: 14 months; non-responders: 4 months). There were no differences in response or survival between the arms. Grade 3/4 cardiac and liver toxicity, and supportive care requirements were greater in the ATO arm. This randomised comparison demonstrates that adding ATO to LDAC provides no benefit for older patients with AML. Leukemia (2011) 25, 1122-1127; doi:10.1038/leu.2011.59; published online 8 April 2011