Normative database of postural sway measures using inertial sensors in typically developing children and young adults.
Stephanie Voss, Cris Zampieri, Alexandras Biskis and 6 others
PMID 34438292WHAT IT FOUND
Wearable sensor standing sway decreased with age in 144 typically developing children and young adults.
Some sway measures reached adult-like values by 9 to 10 years, while others reached them only by 11 to 13 or 14 to 21 years.
Key findings
01All tested sway parameters decreased as age increased across the six standing conditions.
02Total sway area and jerk reached adult-like values by ages 9 to 10 in all conditions except jerk with eyes closed on foam, which reached adult-like values by ages 11 to 13.
03RMS sway and velocity reached adult-like patterns by ages 11 to 13 in eyes-open and tandem conditions, but not until ages 14 to 21 in some eyes-closed conditions.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study provides reference values for typical development, not diagnostic cut-offs for impaired populations. Testing was done in gyms or hallways, and younger children had difficulty staying still, so environment and cooperation may affect the values. Test-retest reliability for the APDM i-SWAY system was not established in this study. The broad 14 to 21 age group could not show finer changes across adolescence. The number of participants analyzed varied by age group and condition because 1 to 10 participants were excluded from some analyses. Single-leg stance was not included, so the database does not cover that common clinical test. The study did not directly compare its inertial sensor values with force plate reference values because units and reported outcomes differed. Sagittal and coronal sway values were not analyzed for age effects to avoid excessive statistical comparisons.
Declared interests
The authors report no financial connection to APDM, the manufacturer of the sensor system, and no conflicts of interest. Publication types indicate NIH and non-U.S. government research support.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat these values as diagnostic cut-offs or proof that a balance intervention works. The study describes typical development, not disease thresholds, and it did not establish test-retest reliability for this APDM system.