Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Cross-sectional and longitudinal association between accelerometer-measured light-intensity physical activity and cognitive function in older adults.

Created on 04 Apr 2025

Authors

Jing-Han Jhan, Jiaren Chen, Ting-Fu Lai, Jong-Hwan Park, Yung Liao

Published in

Frontiers in aging neuroscience. Volume 17. Pages 1505172. Epub Mar 13, 2025.

Abstract

Regarding the methods of improving cognitive function in older adults, it is well-established that moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) is beneficial. Considering the safety and mobility of older adults, recent research has focused on the benefits of light-intensity physical activity (LPA) on cognitive function. However, limited research has utilized the different domains of cognitive examination scales [such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)] to analyze the relationship between LPA and different domains of cognitive function and compare the cross-sectional and longitudinal results. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the cross-sectional and longitudinal association between LPA and both overall and domain-specific cognitive function in older Taiwanese adults.
This longitudinal study recruited participants in an outpatient department of geriatrics and gerontology in a medical center in Taipei City, Taiwan. Data was collected from September 2020 to 2021; the follow-up data were collected until December 2022. Participants were community-dwelling older adults aged ≥ 65 years who could walk independently. Baseline physical activity (any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that requires energy expenditure) and sedentary behavior (any waking behavior while in a sitting, reclining or lying posture with low energy expenditure) were measured with a GT3X+ triaxial accelerometer, categorized as sedentary behavior (< 100 counts/min), LPA (100-2,019 counts/min) and MVPA (≥ 2,020 counts/min). Cognitive functions were measured using the Chinese version of MMSE for the baseline and follow-up data. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between 3 h/day of LPA and cognitive functions. Baseline dependent variables were whether participants had overall cognitive impairment and whether scores of domain-specific MMSE were at the maximum level; in the follow-up analysis, the dependent variables were whether overall and domain-specific scores of MMSE maintained or increased (obtained by subtracting the baseline from the follow-up overall and individual domain MMSE scores).
A total of 167 participants were included (52.10% female; 76.11 ± 6.47 years). The cross-sectional analysis results indicated that in the adjusted model (adjusted for age, sex, educational degree, wear time, MVPA time, and sedentary behavior time), both overall and domain-specific cognitive functions were not significantly associated with ≥ 3 h/day of LPA. The longitudinal analysis results indicated that in the adjusted model, ≥ 3 h/day of LPA was significantly negatively associated with the maintenance or increase of language [odds ratio (OR): 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01-0.99; P = 0.049], and significantly positively associated with the maintenance or increase of orientation (OR: 3.83; 95% CI: 1.01-14.46; P = 0.048).
The cross-sectional and longitudinal impacts of engaging in ≥ 3 h/day of LPA on cognitive functions differed. While engaging in ≥ 3 h/day of LPA has no significant short-term benefits, performing ≥ 3 h/day of LPA is beneficial for maintaining or improving orientation cognitive function in long term. Further studies should explore the longitudinal relationship between LPA and orientation cognitive function to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their potential interactions.

PMID:
40182759
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 04 Apr 2025.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 16
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement