Gait & Posture 39 (2014) 835840

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Gait & Posture

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gaitpost

Impact of age and obstacles on navigation precision and reaction time

during blind navigation in dual-task conditions
Natalie Richer a, Nicole Paquet b, Yves Lajoie c,*
a

University of Ottawa, Health Sciences, School of Human Kinetics, 200 Lees Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S9
University of Ottawa, Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1H 8M5
c
University of Ottawa, Health Sciences, School of Human Kinetics, 125 University Street, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5
b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 25 April 2013
Received in revised form 26 August 2013
Accepted 30 September 2013

Navigation without vision is a skill that is often employed in our daily lives, such as walking in the dark at
night. Navigating without vision to a remembered target has previously been studied. However, little is
known about the impact of age or obstacles on the attentional demands of a blind navigation task. This
study examined the impacts of age and obstacles on reaction time (RT) and navigation precision during
blind navigation in dual-task conditions. The aims were to determine the effects of age, obstacles, and
auditory stimulus location on RT and navigation precision in a blind navigation task. Ten healthy young
adults (24.5  2.5 years) and ten healthy older adults (69.5  2.9 years) participated in the study.
Participants were asked to walk to a target located 8 m ahead. In half the trials, the path was obstructed with
hanging obstacles. Participants performed this task in the absence of vision, while executing a discrete RT
task. Results demonstrated that older adults presented increased RT, linear distance travelled (LDT), and
obstacle contact; that obstacle presence signicantly increased RT compared to trials with no obstacles; and
that an auditory stimulus emitted early versus late in the path increased LDT. Results suggest that the
attentional demands of blind navigation are higher in older than young adults, as well as when obstacles are
present. Furthermore, navigation precision is affected by age and when participants are distracted by the
secondary task early in navigation, presumably because the secondary task interferes with path estimation.
2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords:
Attentional demands
Navigation
Ageing
Reaction time
Obstacles

1. Introduction
Attention is dened as the information processing capacity of
an individual [1]. A typical method to evaluate the attentional
demands needed to perform a primary task is the dual-task
methodology. This methodology assumes that there is a limited
central processing capacity and that performing a task requires
part of this capacity. If two tasks share this capacity and it is
exceeded, performance in one or both tasks will be affected [2].
Older individuals have more difculty than young individuals
with walking and concurrently performing a task, such as avoiding
obstacles, watching for trafc, or talking [1,3]. The addition of a

All authors were involved in the study and preparation of the manuscript and the
material within has not been and will not be submitted for publication elsewhere.
Abbreviations: BR, Body rotation; DT, Distance to target; LDT, Linear distance
travelled; OC, Obstacle contact; RT, Reaction time.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 613 562 5800x4273; fax: +1 613 562 5497.
E-mail addresses: nricher@uottawa.ca (N. Richer), npaquet@uottawa.ca
(N. Paquet), ylajoie@uottawa.ca (Y. Lajoie).

concurrent task while circumventing obstacles was found to

decrease ability to avoid obstacles, particularly in older adults
[46]. This may explain the high rate of falls in this population
[4,5]. It has been demonstrated that ageing requires a greater
proportion of attentional resources to be allocated to postural
stability and balance [7]. Slower processing capacity has been
associated with age [8] and older adults have shown a decline in
attention capacity as well as the ability to allocate available
resources between tasks [9]. The tendency to stop walking when
talking in older individuals is an indicator of a limited attentional
capacity, and is also a predictor of future falls in older nursing
home residents [3]. Furthermore, studies have shown signicant
attentional demands related to postural control in older adults,
even under relatively simple conditions [1,7,10,11].
In daily life, there are many instances of displacements with
limited vision, such as walking in the dark at night. Older
individuals also experience reduced vision that is characteristic
of ageing, or have vision problems such as cataracts. Limited
vision may further increase the risk of falls, since it has been
found that walking without vision requires higher attentional
demands [12,13]. Several studies have demonstrated that
navigating without vision towards a remembered target is
associated with distance and direction errors [1219]. Higher

0966-6362 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.09.019

836

N. Richer et al. / Gait & Posture 39 (2014) 835840

attentional requirements have also been observed during

navigation through obstacles with full vision, particularly in
older adults [e.g. 20]. However, very little is known about
whether age and obstacles have effects on navigation errors and
the attentional demands of walking without vision towards a
previously seen target.
The aims of this study were to determine the effects of age,
obstacles and auditory stimulus location on reaction time (RT)
and navigation precision in a blind navigation dual-task. We
hypothesised that (1) RT would be longer in older adults than
in young participants, since ageing is known to be associated
with a slower processing capacity [8]; (2) Older participants
will make larger navigation errors than the young ones, since it
has been suggested that older adults rely more on vision due to
the sensory losses related to ageing [e.g. 21] and are more
affected by removal of vision [22]. Age also causes deterioration in the somatosensory and vestibular systems [22], which
are important for navigation [23], therefore effects of vision
removal on navigation errors would be more signicant in
older adults; (3) Obstacles would increase RT in the blind
navigation task, as previous studies have demonstrated that
increasing difculty of a navigation task would increase RT [e.g.
24,25]; (4) RT would be longer near the start of the path and
near the target, since studies have found increased RT at the
beginning of walking trials due to gait initiation [24] and as
participants neared the target [25]; (5) A stimulus emitted near
the start of the path would impact navigation precision more
than a stimulus emitted near the end of the path, since the
secondary task interferes with necessary updating of the
participants position during navigation [26].
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Ten young adults (1 male, 9 female, 24.5  2.46 years) and 10
older adults (8 male, 2 female, 69.5  2.88 years) participated in this
study. All were healthy, with no recent history of musculoskeletal
injury to the lower limb, no history of falls in the past 6 months, and
no uncorrectable problems with vision, as was determined through a
health questionnaire. Participants also had no cognitive condition
that could impair performance in the study, as was evaluated with the
mini-mental state evaluation [27]. All participants signed a consent
form approved by the University of Ottawas Ethics Committee before
participation.
2.2. Apparatus
Two obstacles were placed at specic intervals along an 8 m
walking path. Obstacles were made of light Styrofoam cylinders
hung from the ceiling. Obstacle 1 consisted of two beams
hanging side by side, 80 cm apart, and represented a door frame.
Both beams were 1.8 m in length and 7 cm in diameter. Obstacle
2 was 1.8 m in length and 12 cm in diameter and was placed in
the middle of the path. Figs. 1 and 2 represent this layout. A
Vicon512TM three-dimensional motion analysis system (Oxford
Metrics, Oxford, UK) with 8 infrared high-resolution cameras
was used to collect reection from markers. A model was
obtained from 20 reective markers placed on the participant.
Sampling frequency was set to 200 Hz. Participants were also
equipped with a speaker that emitted the auditory stimulus and
an mp3 player to record the stimulus and verbal response. The
speaker and mp3 player were both attached to a fabric loop
placed around the participants neck, at the level of the sternum.
Participants wore opaque goggles that completely excluded
vision during the trials.

Fig. 1. Setup of the experiment. The obstacles consisted of Styrofoam cylinders

which were hung from the ceiling. Obstacle 1 consisted of two obstacles
representing a door frame placed 1m30 after the starting point. Obstacle 2
consisted of a foam cylinder placed in the middle of the path, approximately 4m30
through the path.

2.3. Procedure
2.3.1. Single-task
The main task in this experiment was blind navigation.
Participants were placed at the starting line and had 5 s to look
at the path and the target located 8 m away, after which they put
on opaque goggles. There was an 8-s delay before giving
participants the starting signal to eliminate the internalisation
of path information [15]. The participants task was to depart at the
starting line, walk the 8-m path while wearing the opaque goggles
until they believed they had arrived at the target line, and stop.
Following each trial, the participants were wheeled back to the
starting line with a wheelchair while still wearing opaque goggles
in order to avoid knowledge of results which may have affected
performance.
In half the trials, obstacles 1 and 2 were installed in the path, as
shown in Figs. 1 and 2. We randomly presented blocs of 4 trials
with or without obstacles in order to reduce time spent
manipulating obstacles. During the blind navigation task, participants were asked to avoid obstacles while executing the
previously described goal of reaching the target without vision.
Participants were instructed to keep walking even if they touched
an obstacle.
2.3.2. Dual-task
In addition to the navigation task, either with or without
obstacles, an auditory-verbal RT task was added. This type of RT
task was used since it is an easy, portable technique and is the
standard secondary task used in similar studies from our research
team [e.g. 7,13]. An auditory stimulus (beep) was emitted at any
one of the 6 different locations of the path. Participants were asked
to respond top as quickly as possible to this stimulus, while
continuing the primary task of navigating without vision towards
the target. There was either one or no stimulus emitted per trial,
with the stimulus randomly alternating among 6 locations of the
path, as demonstrated in Fig. 2. RTs were collected when the
stimulus was emitted near obstacle 1, near obstacle 2 or triggered
manually at the participants last step (Fig. 2: Locations 1, 3 and 6).
No RTs were collected at locations 2, 4 and 5 as these correspond to
stimuli used as supplementary trials to counteract consistency of
auditory stimuli. The supplementary trials were used to reduce risk
of any association or sequence pattern that may be noticed by
participants. The location of auditory stimuli was randomly
presented to avoid anticipation.

N. Richer et al. / Gait & Posture 39 (2014) 835840

837

Fig. 2. Setup of the experiment. Obstacles were placed at specic intervals along the 8 m path. Auditory stimuli were presented at 6 different spots in the path. Locations 1, 3
and 6 correspond to the auditory stimulus locations that were evaluated. Locations 2, 4 and 5 correspond to stimuli which were used as supplementary trials to counteract
consistency of auditory stimuli.

Eight trials with no stimulus were completed for each condition

(obstacles and no obstacle). Eight trials per stimulus location (1, 3
and 6) were done in each condition (obstacles and no obstacle).
Finally, 6 supplementary trials at stimulus locations 2, 4 and 5 were
included in random obstacle conditions, for a total of 70 trials. The
order of trials was randomly presented and conditions were
randomly alternated.
2.4. Data analyses
Independent variables were group (young and older), condition
(obstacles and no obstacle) and stimulus location (locations 1, 3, 6,
and no stimulus). Dependent variables were RT and the following
navigation precision measures: linear distance travelled (LDT),
distance to target (DT), body rotation (BR), and obstacle contact
(OC). LDT corresponds to the distance between the start and nal
position of each task. DT is the average linear distance between the
nal position and the target. BR corresponds to the participants
body angle at the nal position. OC corresponds to the number of
times any of the obstacles were touched by a participant. To obtain
RTs, we collected audio data using an mp3 player and analysed the
data using Audacity software. The time between the rst deection
of the trace during the auditory stimulus signal and the rst
deection of the trace during the verbal response determined RT
[13].
From the kinematic data collected, we extracted the starting
and nal positions for subsequent analyses. We then calculated
average values for each participant, in each of the different
conditions: Stimulus locations 1, 3, 6 or no stimulus, either with or
without obstacles.
2.5. Statistical analyses
We performed three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on
Group (young versus older)  Condition (obstacle versus no
obstacle)  Stimulus Location (1, 3, 6, or no stimulus) with
repeated measures on the last two factors for RT, LDT, DT, and
BR. Tukey post hoc analyses were performed to determine the
location of the signicant differences. The MannWhitney U test

was used to evaluate OC. A p value smaller or equal to 0.05 was

considered signicant for all analyses.
3. Results
3.1. RT during navigation
A signicant main effect of group on RT was found (F1, 18 = 15.645,
p = 0.001). Older participants proved to have a signicantly longer
average RT (640 ms) than the young participants (521 ms). There
was also a signicant main effect of condition on RT (F1, 18 = 13.278,
p = 0.002). The average RT in conditions with obstacles (603 ms) was
longer than in conditions without obstacles (558 ms). There was no
signicant main effect of stimulus location (locations 1, 3 or 6) on RT
(F2, 36 = 1.302, p = 0.284) and no signicant interactions between
factors. Fig. 3 illustrates obtained RT, showing average RT for trials
with or without obstacles for the different stimulus locations, in
young and older participants.
3.2. Navigation precision
A signicant main effect of group on average LDT was found (F1,
= 4.620, p = 0.045). Fig. 4 illustrates that older participants had
signicantly longer average LDT (9262 mm) compared to the young
group (8228 mm). A signicant main effect of stimulus location was
found on LDT, with longer LDT when the stimulus was emitted at
location 1 (8886 mm) rather than at locations 3 (8715 mm) or 6
(8675 mm) or when no stimulus was emitted (8704 mm) (F3,
54 = 3.857, p = 0.014). There was no signicant effect of condition on
average LDT (F1, 18 = 0.017, p = 0.897). As for DT, there was no
signicant effect of group (F1, 18 = 2.633, p = 0.122), condition (F1,
18 = 0.473, p = 0.500) or stimulus location (F3, 54 = 0.819, p = 0.489).
There was a signicant main effect of condition on BR (F1,
18 = 7.250, p = 0.015). Participants presented a signicantly higher
BR in trials with obstacles than with no obstacle. There was no
signicant effect of group (F1, 18 = 0.720, p = 0.407) or stimulus
location (F3, 54 = 0.120, p = 0.948) on BR.
All participants had at least one contact with the obstacles
during data collection. The number of trials where participants
18

838

N. Richer et al. / Gait & Posture 39 (2014) 835840

**

800

**

**
**

750

**

**

**

Locaon 3

Locaon 6

Mean RT (ms)

700
650
600
550
500
450
400
Locaon 1

Locaon 3

Locaon 6

Locaon 1

No Obstacle

Obstacles

Young Group
Older Group

Condion and RT Smulus Locaon

Fig. 3. Average (1 SD) RT for trials with obstacles or with no obstacles for different auditory stimulus locations, in young and older participants (**p < 0.01).

greater in older than young participants [e.g. 7,13]. Ageing is

known to be associated with a slower processing capacity [8] and a
reduced ability to correctly allocate attentional resources between
tasks [9]. In fact, Siu and colleagues [28] demonstrated that older
individuals have a decreased ability to allocate attention between a
cognitive and a navigation task. Therefore, we can suggest that the
attentional cost of walking is particularly increased in the absence
of vision in older individuals.

contacted the obstacles on a total of 32 trials per person performed

with obstacles varies between 2 and 20 for young adults (average
6.5 hits per individual) and between 3 and 21 for older adults
(average 14 hits per individual). Differences between groups were
signicant, as determined through a MannWhitney U test
(U19 = 16.5, Z = 2.5, p = 0.011).
4. Discussion

4.1.2. Obstacle presence increases RT

Results of the current study demonstrated a signicantly longer
RT associated to trials with obstacles, as opposed to trials without
obstacles. Limited research has examined navigation through
hanging obstacles with the absence of vision. However, previous
studies have examined the effect of difculty of navigation tasks on
RT. Various authors have suggested that a more complex walking
task requires more attentional resources [e.g. 24,25]. The present
study demonstrated that the addition of obstacles increased the
difculty of the navigation task versus an unobstructed path.
Therefore, our study added to the knowledge that attentional
demands are increased during walking through hanging obstacles
in the absence of vision, in both young and older participants.

This experiment revealed that while navigating without vision

through obstacles in dual-task conditions, age and obstacle
presence had a signicant effect on RT. Furthermore, age and
stimulus location had a signicant effect on LDT. Finally, age had a
signicant effect on OC.
4.1. RT during navigation
4.1.1. Older age increases RT
Results demonstrated a signicant effect of age on RT in the
blind navigation task. Older participants had signicantly longer
RTs than the young participants. Previous studies suggest that
attentional demands during a dual-task involving walking are
*
11000

Distance Travelled (mm)

10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
1

No Auditory

Young Group
Older Group
Fig. 4. Average (1 SD) LDT in young and older participants for different auditory stimulus locations (1, 3 or 6) or when no stimulus was presented (*p < 0.05).

N. Richer et al. / Gait & Posture 39 (2014) 835840

4.1.3. Stimulus location does not impact RT

We found no signicant difference between RTs at different
stimulus locations along the path. This might be due to the
concurrent RT task which was not demanding enough cognitively.
Since the RT task requires different modalities than those used in
navigation [13], the interaction between both tasks might not be
important enough to cause changes in RT.
4.2. Navigation precision
4.2.1. Older age increases LDT
Young, healthy individuals are able to reach a previously seen
target without vision with relatively small direction and distance
errors [12,1418]. Older adults are also able to perform this task,
although with larger navigational errors than young individuals
[13,19]. The present study supports that distance errors are larger
in older participants during blind navigation [13]. This is an
expected result, as somatosensory and vestibular systems that are
involved in navigation [23] are known to deteriorate with age [22].
The previously mentioned results support the idea that the
cognitive, sensory and motor control systems of older adults are
impaired compared to young adults. Older participants may have
difculties with perception of their own displacement [29] or with
updating their current position during navigation [26]. This
impairment could also be due to a difculty in estimating target
distance and location or an insufcient working memory to
remember target position while updating ones own position [16].
4.2.2. Older age increases OC
The current study demonstrated that OC was signicantly
increased in older compared to young adults. This result was expected,
as previous studies have demonstrated that older adults have more
difculty with obstacle avoidance than young adults [e.g. 4]. As
described in the previous paragraph, older adults have a tendency to
walk further than young adults due to various impairments that
reduce their capacity to estimate and perceive displacements
[16,26,29]. Due to their overestimation of the distance, older adults
will attempt to circumvent the obstacle later than necessary, causing
them to contact the obstacle more frequently.
4.2.3. Stimulus location affects LDT
The novel nding of this study is that when the stimulus was
emitted early at location 1, it signicantly increased LDT compared
with later locations in the trial or when no stimulus was emitted. A
similar study by Lajoie and colleagues [13] found that dual-tasking
signicantly increased LDT as opposed to navigation alone.
Similarly, Glasauer and colleagues [14] found that adding a
concurrent cognitive task to a blind navigation task signicantly
increased distance travelled. In the present study, we propose that
responding to the auditory stimulus acted as a distraction for the
participant. This interferes with the necessary updating of the
participants position during navigation [26], which is used to
continuously mentally calculate the distance to be covered in order
to reach the target. Therefore, the RT task interrupts the updating
of the estimated distance remaining, which lengthens LDT. In cases
where the stimulus is emitted half-way or near the end of the path,
the interruption does not affect path estimation enough to produce
signicantly increased distance errors.
4.2.4. Effect on other navigation measures
The only other signicant result we found was that participants
presented a signicantly higher BR in trials with obstacles than in
trials with no obstacle. It is important to note that with an average
BR of 11.78 in trials with obstacles and 10.18 in trials with no
obstacle, the difference between the two is only 1.68, which is
marginal.

839

5. Conclusion
Results demonstrated that older adults presented increased
RT, LDT, and OC; that obstacle presence signicantly increased RT
compared to trials with no obstacles; and that an auditory
stimulus emitted early versus late in the path increased LDT. We
suggest that higher attentional demands were required to
navigate towards a previously seen target in a path including
obstacles and that older age had an impact on the control of
navigation in these conditions. A novel nding was that an
auditory stimulus presented at the beginning of a task increased
LDT. We propose that by acting as a distraction, the RT task
interferes with the updating of the participants position during
navigation.
Acknowledgements
This project was nanced by the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research (CGA-91754) and Physiotherapy Foundation of Canada
(Community Rehab Physiotherapy Research Grant). The authors
would like to thank all the volunteers who participated in this
study and Etienne Bisson for his invaluable help with data
collection.
Conict of interest statement
The authors have no conicts of interest to disclose.
References
[1] Woollacott MH, Shumway-Cook A. Attention and the control of posture
and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. Gait Posture 2002;16:
114.
[2] Kahneman D. Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1973.
[3] Lundin-Olsson L, Nyberg L, Gustafson Y. Stops walking when talking as a
predictor of falls in elderly people. Lancet 1997;349:617.
[4] Chen HC, Schultz AB, Ashton-Miller JA, Giordani B, Alexander NB, Guire KE.
Stepping over obstacles: dividing attention impairs performance of old more
than young adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1996;51:M11622.
[5] Weerdesteyn V, Nienhuis B, Duysens J. Advancing age progressively affects
obstacle avoidance skills in the elderly. Hum Mov Sci 2005;24:86580.
[6] Hegeman J, Weerdesteyn V, van den Bemt B, Nienhuis B. Dual-tasking interferes with obstacle avoidance reactions in healthy seniors. Gait Posture
2012;36:23640.
[7] Lajoie Y, Teasdale N, Bard C, Fleury M. Upright standing and gait: are there
changes in attentional requirements related to normal aging? Exp Aging Res
1996;22:18598.
[8] Welford AT. Reaction time, speed of performance, and age. In: Joseph JA,
editor. Central determinants of age-related declines in motor function. New
York: The New York Academy of Sciences; 1988. p. 117.
[9] Teasdale N, Bard C, Dadouchi F, Fleury M, LaRue J, Stelmach GE. Posture and
elderly persons: evidence for decits in the central integrative mechanisms.
In: Stelmach GE, Requin J, editors. Tutorials in motor behaviour II. Amsterdam:
Elsevier Science; 1992. p. 91731.
[10] Teasdale N, Bard C, Larue J, Fleury M. On the cognitive penetrability of posture
control. Exp Aging Res 1993;19:113.
[11] Maylor E, Wing A. Age differences in postural stability are increased by
additional cognitive demands. J Gerontol 1996;51B:14354.
[12] Paquet N, Lajoie Y, Rainville C, Sabagh-Yazdi F. Effect of navigation direction on
the dual-task of counting backward during blind navigation. Neurosci Lett
2008;442:14851.
[13] Lajoie Y, Paquet N, Laeur R. Attentional demand varies during a blind
navigation pathway in young and older adults. Open Behav Sci J 2013;7:16.
[14] Glasauer S, Stein A, Gunther AL, Flanagin VL, Jahn K, Brandt T. The effect of dual
tasks in locomotor path integration. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009;1064:2015.
[15] Thomson J. Is continuous visual monitoring necessary in visually guided
locomotion. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept 1983;9:42743.
[16] Rieser JJ, Ashmead DH, Talor CR, Youngquist GA. Visual perception and the
guidance of locomotion without vision to previously seen targets. Perception
1990;19:67589.
[17] Paquet N, Rainville C, Lajoie Y, Tremblay F. Reproducibility of distance and
direction errors associated with forward, backward and sideway walking in
the context of blind navigation. Perception 2007;36:52536.
[18] Mittelstaedt M-L, Mittelstaedt H. Idiothetic navigation in humans: estimation
of path length. Exp Brain Res 2001;139:31832.
[19] Gallagher S, Lajoie Y, Guay M. Walking with visual restrictions in healthy
elderly and young adults. Can J Aging 2001;21:295301.

840

N. Richer et al. / Gait & Posture 39 (2014) 835840

[20] Gerin-Lajoie M, Richards CL, McFayden BJ. The circumvention of obstacles

during walking in different environmental contexts: a comparison between
older and younger adults. Gait Posture 2006;24:3649.
[21] Anderson PG, Nienhuis B, Mulder T, Hulstijn W. Are older adults more
dependent on visual information in regulating self-motion than younger
adults. J Motor Behav 1998;30:10413.
[22] Manchester D, Woollacott M, Zederbauer-Hylton N, Visual Marin O, Vestibular. Somatosensory contributions to balance control in the older adult. J
Gerontol 1989;44:11827.
[23] Loomis JM, Klatzky RL, Golledge RG, Cicinelli JG, Pellegrino JW, Fry PA.
Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: assessment of path integration
ability. J Exp Psychol Gen 1993;122:7391.
[24] Sparrow WA, Bradshaw EJ, Lamoureux E, Tirosh O. Ageing effects on the
attention demands of walking. Hum Movement Sci 2002;21:96172.

[25] Bardy BG, Laurent M. Visual cues and attention demands in locomotor
positioning. Percept Motor Skill 1991;72:91526.
[26] Potegal M. Vestibular and neostriatal contributions to spatial orientation.
In: Potegal M, editor. Spatial abilities. London: Academic Press; 1982 . p.
36187.
[27] Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state: a practical method for
grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res
1975;12:18998.
[28] Siu K-C, Chou L-S, Mayr U, Donkelaar Pv Woollacott MH. Does inability to
allocate attention contribute to balance constraints during gait in older adults.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2008;63:13649.
[29] Book A, Garling T. Maintenance of orientation during locomotion in unfamiliar
environments. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept 1981;7:9951006.