Abstract

Background

Dementia often results in postural control impairment, which could signify central nervous system dysfunction. However, no studies have compared postural control characteristics among various types of dementia. This study aimed to compare static postural control in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and vascular dementia (VaD).

Methods

Cross-sectional relationship between the clinical diagnoses (AD, DLB, VaD, or normal cognition [NC]) of outpatients at a memory clinic and their upright postural control characteristics were examined. In the postural control test, participants were instructed to maintain a static upright standing on a stabilometer for 60 seconds under the eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions. Forty postural control parameters, including distance, position, and velocity in the anterior–posterior and medio–lateral directions, derived from the trajectory of the center of mass sway, were calculated. The characteristics of each type of dementia were compared to those of NC, and the differences among the 3 types of dementia were evaluated using linear regression models.

Results

The study included 1 789 participants (1 206 with AD, 111 with DLB, 49 with VaD, and 423 with NC). Patients with AD exhibited distinct postural control characteristics, particularly in some distance and velocity parameters, only in the eyes-closed condition. Those with DLB exhibited features in the mean position in the anterior–posterior direction. In patients with VaD, significant differences were observed in most parameters, except the power spectrum.

Conclusions

Patients with AD, DLB, and VaD display disease-specific postural control characteristics when compared to cognitively normal individuals.

Dementia is a major cause of loss of patients’ independence and of decreased quality of life. The total number of patients with dementia worldwide will triple in the next 3 decades (from 57 million in 2019 to an estimated 153 million in 2050) (1). Providing medical and formal or informal, long-term end-of-life care for patients with dementia poses a considerable strain on caregivers and is associated with a high financial cost, which has been estimated to bring the global economic burden of the disease to approximately $17 trillion in 2050 (2). Because the neuropsychiatric symptoms and sensorimotor dysfunction along with dementia are directly related to an increased caregiving load (3,4), the importance of appropriate assessment and management of these noncognitive symptoms of dementia has been pointed out (5,6).

In recent years, many studies have focused on gait and balance impairments in patients with dementia (7–10). Gait and balance deficits in patients with dementia are clinically significant issues because they are risk factors for negative outcomes such as activities of daily living (ADL) decline, falls, and dementia progression (11–13). Moreover, some studies imply that motor control measurements can be used as screening and diagnostic tools because gait and balance dysfunction are known to be already present at the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia phase (8,14–16). Because adequate postural control requires the appropriate central nervous system (CNS) function (integration and coordination between inputs from somatosensory, visual, and vestibular systems and the outputs for postural muscles), quantitative measures of postural control characteristics are considered to reflect CNS performance (9,10). One established postural control measurement is the testing of random and consecutive movements of the center of gravity (postural sway) during quiet upright standing using a stabilometer. This measurement is a better comprehensive indicator of fall risk in older adults than clinical balance tests such as 1-leg stand and is commonly used in clinical practice in the fields of rehabilitation and otolaryngology (17). However, its adoption in the case of patients with dementia has been limited. Previous studies have shown that the magnitude and speed of postural sway increase with the onset of MCI and dementia (18,19). In addition, postural sway characteristics in older adults with dementia or cognitive impairment are also associated with their cognitive function (20), falls (17,19), volume or functional loss in specific brain regions (hippocampus, parahippocampal gyrus, entorhinal cortex, and inferior parietal lobe) (20–22), and greater default mode network functional connectivity at the resting state (23).

Dementia presents a variety of clinical and pathological features depending on its underlying causes (24). Since postural control requires a complex integration at the CNS level (25), it is possible that differences between different types of dementia, such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and vascular dementia (VaD), may have different effects on postural control characteristics. However, evidence with sufficient cases describing postural sway features in patients with dementia is limited, and the characteristics of postural control in different types of dementia have not been defined. The purpose of this study was to determine balance and postural control characteristics according to dementia type based on postural sway tests.

Method

Design, Settings, and Participants

This study examined cross-sectional differences in upright postural control among patients with AD, DLB, VaD, and those without clinical cognitive decline, based on a retrospective review of electronic medical records. First-time outpatients aged 65–85 years who visited the memory clinic of the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology (NCGG) between June 2011 and December 2017 were examined. According to our standard diagnostic procedure, patient and their family members (or primary caregivers) underwent a comprehensive geriatric assessment, blood testing, neuropsychological examination, and brain imaging at their initial visit. An experienced neurologist, psychiatrist, geriatrician, or neurosurgeon made a clinical diagnosis of normal cognition, MCI, or dementia (as well as specific dementia type) based on the results of these examinations and those from the medical interview (26). The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association Workgroup criteria, the fourth consensus report of the DLB Consortium, and the diagnostic criteria for vascular cognitive disorders by the International Society for Vascular Behavioral and Cognitive Disorders were used for the diagnosis of AD, DLB, and VaD, respectively (27–29). We have included in the analysis patients diagnosed with possible or probable AD, possible or probable DLB, or cortical/subcortical VaD (27–29). Patients who had visited the memory clinic during the study period due to a subjective cognitive concern but were diagnosed with normal cognition (NC) were also included in the analysis as a control group. Those who had missing values in the postural control test or MMSE were excluded. We also excluded participants with (a) limitations in basic ADLs (<80 points on the Barthel index); (b) diabetes mellitus (DM, self-reported, HbA1c > 6.5%, or use of anti-diabetic drugs); (c) other neurological or neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntington’s disease, normal pressure hydrocephalus, or multiple system atrophy; and (d) significant cerebrovascular disorders confirmed by brain imaging, to prevent potential confounding effects from musculoskeletal dysfunction and/or peripheral neuropathy.

The study protocol was created in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and approved by the Ethics Committee of the NCGG (approval No. 1611). We provided an opt-out opportunity for those who did not consent to the use of their data in the study.

Postural Control Measurement

The sway of the center of mass during upright standing was measured to assess postural control in the participants. The ground reaction force and center of pressure (CoP) were measured using a stabilometer―a force plate attached to a measuring device, Gravicorder GP-5000 (ANIMA Corporation, Japan), to estimate the center of mass sway. Trained psychologists conducted postural control testing in accordance with the Japanese equilibrium research guidelines (30). In a moderately bright and quiet examination room, participants were instructed to maintain an upright posture with their feet together and arms by the sides of the body for 60 seconds. Measurements were performed in the eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions, in that order. During the eyes-open condition, participants focused on a visual reference mark at a distance of 100 cm in front of them. The detailed test procedure is described elsewhere (30). Time-course trajectories of CoP were recorded as coordinates on a horizontal plane (with the x-axis representing the medio–lateral [ML] direction and the y-axis representing the anterior–posterior [AP] direction), with a sampling rate of 20 Hz. Of the 66 parameters validated in a previous study (31), we used 40 parameters (20 parameters per eye condition) from 5 domains (distance, area, position, velocity, and power spectrum) as outcome measures for the purpose of increasing interpretability. The details of each variable and calculation method are shown in Table 1. In the distance, area, and velocity domains, positive coefficient values indicated that participants with dementia moved their CoP faster and with a greater range than did participants with NC; in the position domain, positive coefficient values indicated that participants with dementia controlled their upright posture by keeping their CoP on the right side (for ML parameters) or front side (for AP parameters) more often than did individuals with NC; and in the power spectrum domain, positive coefficient values indicated that postural control in participants with dementia represents a larger proportion of the relevant frequency region than that in individuals with NC.

Table 1.

Postural Sway Parameters Used in this Study

DomainParameterUnitsShort description
DistanceMean path lengthcm/sCoP displacement per second.
RMScmRoot mean square of CoP displacement. RMS = 1nni=1{(xix¯)2+(yiy¯)2}
RMS (ML)cmRMS in x-axis. RMS (ML) = 1nni=1(xix¯)2
RMS (AP)cmRMS in y-axis. RMS (AP) = 1nni=1(yiy¯)2
AreaRectangular areacm2The area enclosed by a rectangle with the maximum displacement in each axis.
RMS areacm2Area enclosed by a circle with RMS as radius.
PositionCenter of position (ML)cmMean CoP coordinates in the x-axis.
Center of position (AP)cmMean CoP coordinates in the y-axis.
SD of position (ML)cmStandard deviation of CoP coordinates in the x-axis.
SD of position (AP)cmStandard deviation of CoP coordinates in the y-axis.
VelocityMean velocity (ML)cm/sMean moving velocity of CoP in the x-axis.
Mean velocity (AP)cm/sMean moving velocity of CoP in the y-axis.
SD of velocity (ML)cm/sStandard deviation of CoP moving velocity in the x-axis.
SD of velocity (AP)cm/sStandard deviation of CoP moving velocity in the y-axis.
Power spectrumPower of A-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 0–0.2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of B-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 0.2–2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of C-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 2 Hz or over to the total power spectrum
Power of A-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 0–0.2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of B-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 0.2–2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of C-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 2 Hz or over to the total power spectrum
DomainParameterUnitsShort description
DistanceMean path lengthcm/sCoP displacement per second.
RMScmRoot mean square of CoP displacement. RMS = 1nni=1{(xix¯)2+(yiy¯)2}
RMS (ML)cmRMS in x-axis. RMS (ML) = 1nni=1(xix¯)2
RMS (AP)cmRMS in y-axis. RMS (AP) = 1nni=1(yiy¯)2
AreaRectangular areacm2The area enclosed by a rectangle with the maximum displacement in each axis.
RMS areacm2Area enclosed by a circle with RMS as radius.
PositionCenter of position (ML)cmMean CoP coordinates in the x-axis.
Center of position (AP)cmMean CoP coordinates in the y-axis.
SD of position (ML)cmStandard deviation of CoP coordinates in the x-axis.
SD of position (AP)cmStandard deviation of CoP coordinates in the y-axis.
VelocityMean velocity (ML)cm/sMean moving velocity of CoP in the x-axis.
Mean velocity (AP)cm/sMean moving velocity of CoP in the y-axis.
SD of velocity (ML)cm/sStandard deviation of CoP moving velocity in the x-axis.
SD of velocity (AP)cm/sStandard deviation of CoP moving velocity in the y-axis.
Power spectrumPower of A-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 0–0.2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of B-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 0.2–2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of C-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 2 Hz or over to the total power spectrum
Power of A-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 0–0.2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of B-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 0.2–2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of C-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 2 Hz or over to the total power spectrum

Notes: AP = anterior–posterior; CoP = center of pressure; ML = medio–lateral; RMS = root mean square.

Medio–lateral axis and anterior–posterior axis are denoted by x and y, respectively. n = number of data points (60 s × 20 Hz = 1 200); xi, yi = CoP coordinates in the x- and y-axis at each time. x¯, y¯ = Mean CoP coordinates in the x- and y-axis.

*Fourier transform was performed on the CoP trajectories of the x- or y-axis.

Table 1.

Postural Sway Parameters Used in this Study

DomainParameterUnitsShort description
DistanceMean path lengthcm/sCoP displacement per second.
RMScmRoot mean square of CoP displacement. RMS = 1nni=1{(xix¯)2+(yiy¯)2}
RMS (ML)cmRMS in x-axis. RMS (ML) = 1nni=1(xix¯)2
RMS (AP)cmRMS in y-axis. RMS (AP) = 1nni=1(yiy¯)2
AreaRectangular areacm2The area enclosed by a rectangle with the maximum displacement in each axis.
RMS areacm2Area enclosed by a circle with RMS as radius.
PositionCenter of position (ML)cmMean CoP coordinates in the x-axis.
Center of position (AP)cmMean CoP coordinates in the y-axis.
SD of position (ML)cmStandard deviation of CoP coordinates in the x-axis.
SD of position (AP)cmStandard deviation of CoP coordinates in the y-axis.
VelocityMean velocity (ML)cm/sMean moving velocity of CoP in the x-axis.
Mean velocity (AP)cm/sMean moving velocity of CoP in the y-axis.
SD of velocity (ML)cm/sStandard deviation of CoP moving velocity in the x-axis.
SD of velocity (AP)cm/sStandard deviation of CoP moving velocity in the y-axis.
Power spectrumPower of A-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 0–0.2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of B-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 0.2–2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of C-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 2 Hz or over to the total power spectrum
Power of A-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 0–0.2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of B-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 0.2–2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of C-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 2 Hz or over to the total power spectrum
DomainParameterUnitsShort description
DistanceMean path lengthcm/sCoP displacement per second.
RMScmRoot mean square of CoP displacement. RMS = 1nni=1{(xix¯)2+(yiy¯)2}
RMS (ML)cmRMS in x-axis. RMS (ML) = 1nni=1(xix¯)2
RMS (AP)cmRMS in y-axis. RMS (AP) = 1nni=1(yiy¯)2
AreaRectangular areacm2The area enclosed by a rectangle with the maximum displacement in each axis.
RMS areacm2Area enclosed by a circle with RMS as radius.
PositionCenter of position (ML)cmMean CoP coordinates in the x-axis.
Center of position (AP)cmMean CoP coordinates in the y-axis.
SD of position (ML)cmStandard deviation of CoP coordinates in the x-axis.
SD of position (AP)cmStandard deviation of CoP coordinates in the y-axis.
VelocityMean velocity (ML)cm/sMean moving velocity of CoP in the x-axis.
Mean velocity (AP)cm/sMean moving velocity of CoP in the y-axis.
SD of velocity (ML)cm/sStandard deviation of CoP moving velocity in the x-axis.
SD of velocity (AP)cm/sStandard deviation of CoP moving velocity in the y-axis.
Power spectrumPower of A-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 0–0.2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of B-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 0.2–2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of C-area (ML)%*Ratio of the x-axis signal at 2 Hz or over to the total power spectrum
Power of A-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 0–0.2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of B-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 0.2–2 Hz to the total power spectrum
Power of C-area (AP)%*Ratio of the y-axis signal at 2 Hz or over to the total power spectrum

Notes: AP = anterior–posterior; CoP = center of pressure; ML = medio–lateral; RMS = root mean square.

Medio–lateral axis and anterior–posterior axis are denoted by x and y, respectively. n = number of data points (60 s × 20 Hz = 1 200); xi, yi = CoP coordinates in the x- and y-axis at each time. x¯, y¯ = Mean CoP coordinates in the x- and y-axis.

*Fourier transform was performed on the CoP trajectories of the x- or y-axis.

Demographic Data; Cognitive, Mental, and Physical Function; and Living and Medication Status

Demographic information such as age, sex, years of education, comorbidities (diabetes or neurodegenerative diseases), and pharmacological status were obtained through a questionnaire or medical interview. Global cognition was measured using the MMSE, with scores ranging from 0 to 30, and higher scores reflecting better cognitive performance (32). Depressive mood and basic ADLs were measured using the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and Barthel index, respectively (33,34). We used body mass index (BMI) as a marker of nutritional status and maximal grip strength as a marker of physical function. Pharmacological status was represented in 2 ways: the number of medications, and the use of fall risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs). According to the definition of the European Geriatric Medicine Society Task, FRIDs include antihypertensives, antiarrhythmics, anticholinergics, antihistamines, sedatives, hypnotics, antipsychotics, antidepressants, opioids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (35,36). Carrier status of apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 alleles was also included in the analysis as a dementia-related biomarker.

Statistical Analyses

Clinical characteristics of the participants and raw postural control parameters are summarized as frequency (percentage) for categorical variables, mean ± standard deviation for normally distributed variables, or median [interquartile range] for non-normally distributed variables in each group. Postural control parameters were compared using a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

To examine the relationship between dementia type and postural control, we created a multi-variable linear regression model with postural control parameters as the response variables and dementia type as the explanatory variable. The effects of AD, DLB, and VaD on postural control parameters were estimated as coefficients with reference to NC, after adjusting for covariates (age, sex, years of education, number of medications, use of FRIDs, MMSE score, GDS score, Barthel index score, BMI, grip strength, and APOE status). Models were created for all of the 40 postural control parameters. Statistical significance was set at p < .05, and all statistical analyses were conducted using R software version 4.0.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

To further examine the differences between dementia types regarding postural control parameters, we also performed direct comparisons between dementia types (AD vs DLB, AD vs VaD, and DLB vs VaD). Coefficients on postural control parameters for DLB and VaD with reference to AD, and for VaD with reference to DLB, were estimated using multivariate linear regression analysis with the covariates described above.

Results

Participant Characteristics Across Clinical Groups

Among the patients who visited our hospital during the study period, 3 493 were diagnosed with NC, AD, DLB, and VaD. A total of 1 789 patients were included in the analysis after excluding patients aged <65 or >85 years (n = 706), lacking an MMSE score (n = 17) or postural control parameters (n = 19), with a Barthel index score <80 (n = 115), or with DM (n = 447; Figure 1). The analysis sample included 423 patients with NC, 1 206 with AD, 111 with DLB, and 49 with VaD. The average age was 76.5 years, and 33.3% were men (Table 2).

Table 2.

Patients’ Baseline Clinical Characteristics

Overall
N = 1 789
NC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
Age, y (n = 1 789)76.5 ± 5.373.3 ± 5.077.5 ± 5.177.7 ± 4.977.2 ± 5.1
Sex, male (n = 1 789)595 (33.3%)174 (41.1%)356 (29.5%)35 (31.5%)30 (61.2%)
Education, y (n = 1 773)11 [9, 12]12 [10, 14]9 [9, 12]9 [9, 12]9 [9, 12]
MMSE, score (n = 1 789)21 [17, 25]29 [27, 30]19 [16, 22]20 [16, 22]20 [17, 23]
GDS, score (n = 1 784)4 [2, 6]3 [1, 5]4 [2, 5]5 [3, 7]5 [2, 7]
Barthel index, score (n = 1 789)100 [100, 100]100 [100, 100]100 [100, 100]100 [95, 100]95 [90, 100]
Body mass index, kg/m2 (n = 1 787)21.8 ± 3.122.2 ± 3.021.6 ± 3.121.7 ± 3.522.9 ± 3.5
Grip strength, kg (n = 1 123)20.8 ± 7.824.5 ± 8.619.6 ± 6.918.4 ± 7.919.8 ± 7.5
FRIDs use (n = 1 789)442 (24.7%)109 (25.8%)273 (22.6%)44 (39.6%)16 (32.7%)
Drugs number, n (n = 1 789)3 [1, 6]3 [1, 6]3 [1, 6]5 [3, 7]5 [3, 8]
APOE4 carrier (n = 1 154)407 (35.3%)46 (17.4%)335 (43.0%)21 (27.3%)5 (15.2%)
Overall
N = 1 789
NC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
Age, y (n = 1 789)76.5 ± 5.373.3 ± 5.077.5 ± 5.177.7 ± 4.977.2 ± 5.1
Sex, male (n = 1 789)595 (33.3%)174 (41.1%)356 (29.5%)35 (31.5%)30 (61.2%)
Education, y (n = 1 773)11 [9, 12]12 [10, 14]9 [9, 12]9 [9, 12]9 [9, 12]
MMSE, score (n = 1 789)21 [17, 25]29 [27, 30]19 [16, 22]20 [16, 22]20 [17, 23]
GDS, score (n = 1 784)4 [2, 6]3 [1, 5]4 [2, 5]5 [3, 7]5 [2, 7]
Barthel index, score (n = 1 789)100 [100, 100]100 [100, 100]100 [100, 100]100 [95, 100]95 [90, 100]
Body mass index, kg/m2 (n = 1 787)21.8 ± 3.122.2 ± 3.021.6 ± 3.121.7 ± 3.522.9 ± 3.5
Grip strength, kg (n = 1 123)20.8 ± 7.824.5 ± 8.619.6 ± 6.918.4 ± 7.919.8 ± 7.5
FRIDs use (n = 1 789)442 (24.7%)109 (25.8%)273 (22.6%)44 (39.6%)16 (32.7%)
Drugs number, n (n = 1 789)3 [1, 6]3 [1, 6]3 [1, 6]5 [3, 7]5 [3, 8]
APOE4 carrier (n = 1 154)407 (35.3%)46 (17.4%)335 (43.0%)21 (27.3%)5 (15.2%)

Notes: AD = Alzheimer’s disease; APOE = apolipoprotein E; DLB = dementia with Lewy bodies; FRIDs = fall risk-increasing drugs; GDS = geriatric depression scale; MMSE = mini-mental state examination; VaD = vascular dementia.

Variables are presented as frequency (percentage) for categorical variables, as mean ± standard deviation for normally distributed variables, or as median [interquartile range] for non-normally distributed variables. The number of cases included in the analysis is listed next to the variable name.

Table 2.

Patients’ Baseline Clinical Characteristics

Overall
N = 1 789
NC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
Age, y (n = 1 789)76.5 ± 5.373.3 ± 5.077.5 ± 5.177.7 ± 4.977.2 ± 5.1
Sex, male (n = 1 789)595 (33.3%)174 (41.1%)356 (29.5%)35 (31.5%)30 (61.2%)
Education, y (n = 1 773)11 [9, 12]12 [10, 14]9 [9, 12]9 [9, 12]9 [9, 12]
MMSE, score (n = 1 789)21 [17, 25]29 [27, 30]19 [16, 22]20 [16, 22]20 [17, 23]
GDS, score (n = 1 784)4 [2, 6]3 [1, 5]4 [2, 5]5 [3, 7]5 [2, 7]
Barthel index, score (n = 1 789)100 [100, 100]100 [100, 100]100 [100, 100]100 [95, 100]95 [90, 100]
Body mass index, kg/m2 (n = 1 787)21.8 ± 3.122.2 ± 3.021.6 ± 3.121.7 ± 3.522.9 ± 3.5
Grip strength, kg (n = 1 123)20.8 ± 7.824.5 ± 8.619.6 ± 6.918.4 ± 7.919.8 ± 7.5
FRIDs use (n = 1 789)442 (24.7%)109 (25.8%)273 (22.6%)44 (39.6%)16 (32.7%)
Drugs number, n (n = 1 789)3 [1, 6]3 [1, 6]3 [1, 6]5 [3, 7]5 [3, 8]
APOE4 carrier (n = 1 154)407 (35.3%)46 (17.4%)335 (43.0%)21 (27.3%)5 (15.2%)
Overall
N = 1 789
NC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
Age, y (n = 1 789)76.5 ± 5.373.3 ± 5.077.5 ± 5.177.7 ± 4.977.2 ± 5.1
Sex, male (n = 1 789)595 (33.3%)174 (41.1%)356 (29.5%)35 (31.5%)30 (61.2%)
Education, y (n = 1 773)11 [9, 12]12 [10, 14]9 [9, 12]9 [9, 12]9 [9, 12]
MMSE, score (n = 1 789)21 [17, 25]29 [27, 30]19 [16, 22]20 [16, 22]20 [17, 23]
GDS, score (n = 1 784)4 [2, 6]3 [1, 5]4 [2, 5]5 [3, 7]5 [2, 7]
Barthel index, score (n = 1 789)100 [100, 100]100 [100, 100]100 [100, 100]100 [95, 100]95 [90, 100]
Body mass index, kg/m2 (n = 1 787)21.8 ± 3.122.2 ± 3.021.6 ± 3.121.7 ± 3.522.9 ± 3.5
Grip strength, kg (n = 1 123)20.8 ± 7.824.5 ± 8.619.6 ± 6.918.4 ± 7.919.8 ± 7.5
FRIDs use (n = 1 789)442 (24.7%)109 (25.8%)273 (22.6%)44 (39.6%)16 (32.7%)
Drugs number, n (n = 1 789)3 [1, 6]3 [1, 6]3 [1, 6]5 [3, 7]5 [3, 8]
APOE4 carrier (n = 1 154)407 (35.3%)46 (17.4%)335 (43.0%)21 (27.3%)5 (15.2%)

Notes: AD = Alzheimer’s disease; APOE = apolipoprotein E; DLB = dementia with Lewy bodies; FRIDs = fall risk-increasing drugs; GDS = geriatric depression scale; MMSE = mini-mental state examination; VaD = vascular dementia.

Variables are presented as frequency (percentage) for categorical variables, as mean ± standard deviation for normally distributed variables, or as median [interquartile range] for non-normally distributed variables. The number of cases included in the analysis is listed next to the variable name.

Study flowchart.
Figure 1.

Study flowchart.

Association Between the Dementia Types and Postural Control Characteristics

The raw values of the postural sway parameters in each group are shown in Table 3 and Supplementary Figures 1–5. Almost all parameters in the distance and area domains―the distance or size of the area traveled by the CoP―and the velocity domain, which represents the speed of movement of the CoP, showed a tendency to increase in the eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions in the following order: NC < AD < DLB < VaD. The values of these parameters were greater in the eyes-closed condition than in the eyes-open condition (eg, eyes-open condition, root mean square: NC = 0.73, AD = 0.80, DLB = 0.89, VaD = 1.04; eyes-closed condition, root mean square: NC = 0.79, AD = 0.89, DLB = 0.94, VaD = 1.10). Regarding the position domain, no special characteristic was found in the ML side, but it was found in the AP side among the 4 groups in the eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions (in the eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions, ML, P = .596 and.505, respectively; AP, P = .016 and.038, respectively). In the power spectrum domain, dementia (especially DLB and VAD) exhibited a larger proportion of the low-frequency area (A-area) and a smaller proportion of the mid-frequency area (B-area) in the ML side.

Table 3.

Patients’ Postural Sway Parameters

Eyes-open conditionEyes-closed condition
NC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
p ValueNC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
p Value
Mean path length, cm/s1.51 ± 0.681.82 ± 0.761.92 ± 0.782.28 ± 1.24<.0012.11 ± 1.272.53 ± 1.412.45 ± 1.132.91 ± 1.59<.001
RMS, cm0.73 ± 0.200.80 ± 0.230.89 ± 0.281.04 ± 0.32<.0010.79 ± 0.270.89 ± 0.320.94 ± 0.321.10 ± 0.36<.001
RMS (ML), cm0.45 ± 0.150.53 ± 0.180.59 ± 0.220.69 ± 0.26<.0010.50 ± 0.200.59 ± 0.240.62 ± 0.250.74 ± 0.30<.001
RMS (AP), cm0.57 ± 0.180.58 ± 0.180.65 ± 0.230.76 ± 0.23<.0010.60 ± 0.220.66 ± 0.250.69 ± 0.240.80 ± 0.26<.001
Rectangular area, cm28.76 ± 5.8911.20 ± 8.0313.99 ± 10.8820.11 ± 14.96<.00112.46 ± 11.9615.84 ± 13.6717.72 ± 14.9222.78 ± 18.77<.001
RMS area, cm21.81 ± 1.102.15 ± 1.332.73 ± 1.973.70 ± 2.26<.0012.19 ± 1.822.82 ± 2.333.08 ± 2.264.18 ± 2.87<.001
Center of position (ML), cm0.11 ± 0.820.14 ± 0.950.01 ± 1.12−0.05 ± 1.26.5960.01 ± 0.870.05 ± 0.990.03 ± 1.18−0.21 ± 1.33.505
Center of position (AP), cm−0.84 ± 1.41−0.75 ± 1.60−1.22 ± 1.71−0.99 ± 1.99.016−0.50 ± 1.45−0.47 ± 1.62−0.95 ± 1.76−0.89 ± 2.01.038
SD of position (ML), cm0.45 ± 0.150.53 ± 0.180.59 ± 0.220.69 ± 0.26<.0010.50 ± 0.200.59 ± 0.240.62 ± 0.250.74 ± 0.30<.001
SD of position (AP), cm0.57 ± 0.180.58 ± 0.180.65 ± 0.230.76 ± 0.23<.0010.60 ± 0.220.66 ± 0.250.69 ± 0.240.80 ± 0.26<.001
Mean velocity (ML), cm/s0.83 ± 0.350.94 ± 0.381.00 ± 0.461.14 ± 0.55<.0011.13 ± 0.621.23 ± 0.651.19 ± 0.601.39 ± 0.77.004
Mean velocity (AP), cm/s0.83 ± 0.351.01 ± 0.411.07 ± 0.371.32 ± 0.68<.0011.13 ± 0.631.40 ± 0.741.37 ± 0.571.68 ± 0.85<.001
SD of velocity (ML), cm/s1.38 ± 0.581.56 ± 0.641.68 ± 0.781.91 ± 0.94<.0011.89 ± 1.042.07 ± 1.101.99 ± 1.022.34 ± 1.28.003
SD of velocity (AP), cm/s1.38 ± 0.591.68 ± 0.701.77 ± 0.632.18 ± 1.12<.0011.87 ± 1.052.32 ± 1.212.29 ± 0.972.81 ± 1.38<.001
Power of A-area (ML), %25.68 ± 6.3226.37 ± 7.3426.78 ± 7.4627.40 ± 7.81.28822.02 ± 6.2222.65 ± 7.2024.62 ± 7.4124.13 ± 9.10.011
Power of B-area (ML), %60.02 ± 6.3959.09 ± 6.7358.76 ± 7.6157.99 ± 7.41.05962.08 ± 6.5560.88 ± 6.8360.15 ± 7.7560.58 ± 8.62.011
Power of C-area (ML), %14.30 ± 4.1814.54 ± 4.3814.46 ± 4.6514.61 ± 4.31.82015.90 ± 4.5016.48 ± 5.0515.23 ± 4.5415.29 ± 5.41.027
Power of A-area (AP), %30.48 ± 7.0326.54 ± 7.4527.32 ± 7.4527.65 ± 7.77<.00124.01 ± 6.3521.69 ± 7.1423.09 ± 7.8323.04 ± 8.03<.001
Power of B-area (AP), %52.86 ± 6.4054.88 ± 6.7454.37 ± 7.0153.92 ± 6.09<.00157.57 ± 6.2557.52 ± 6.7056.40 ± 8.3057.67 ± 6.68.946
Power of C-area (AP), %16.66 ± 5.2918.58 ± 5.7618.31 ± 6.2118.43 ± 6.29<.00118.42 ± 5.5520.79 ± 6.5420.51 ± 6.3119.30 ± 6.56<.001
Eyes-open conditionEyes-closed condition
NC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
p ValueNC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
p Value
Mean path length, cm/s1.51 ± 0.681.82 ± 0.761.92 ± 0.782.28 ± 1.24<.0012.11 ± 1.272.53 ± 1.412.45 ± 1.132.91 ± 1.59<.001
RMS, cm0.73 ± 0.200.80 ± 0.230.89 ± 0.281.04 ± 0.32<.0010.79 ± 0.270.89 ± 0.320.94 ± 0.321.10 ± 0.36<.001
RMS (ML), cm0.45 ± 0.150.53 ± 0.180.59 ± 0.220.69 ± 0.26<.0010.50 ± 0.200.59 ± 0.240.62 ± 0.250.74 ± 0.30<.001
RMS (AP), cm0.57 ± 0.180.58 ± 0.180.65 ± 0.230.76 ± 0.23<.0010.60 ± 0.220.66 ± 0.250.69 ± 0.240.80 ± 0.26<.001
Rectangular area, cm28.76 ± 5.8911.20 ± 8.0313.99 ± 10.8820.11 ± 14.96<.00112.46 ± 11.9615.84 ± 13.6717.72 ± 14.9222.78 ± 18.77<.001
RMS area, cm21.81 ± 1.102.15 ± 1.332.73 ± 1.973.70 ± 2.26<.0012.19 ± 1.822.82 ± 2.333.08 ± 2.264.18 ± 2.87<.001
Center of position (ML), cm0.11 ± 0.820.14 ± 0.950.01 ± 1.12−0.05 ± 1.26.5960.01 ± 0.870.05 ± 0.990.03 ± 1.18−0.21 ± 1.33.505
Center of position (AP), cm−0.84 ± 1.41−0.75 ± 1.60−1.22 ± 1.71−0.99 ± 1.99.016−0.50 ± 1.45−0.47 ± 1.62−0.95 ± 1.76−0.89 ± 2.01.038
SD of position (ML), cm0.45 ± 0.150.53 ± 0.180.59 ± 0.220.69 ± 0.26<.0010.50 ± 0.200.59 ± 0.240.62 ± 0.250.74 ± 0.30<.001
SD of position (AP), cm0.57 ± 0.180.58 ± 0.180.65 ± 0.230.76 ± 0.23<.0010.60 ± 0.220.66 ± 0.250.69 ± 0.240.80 ± 0.26<.001
Mean velocity (ML), cm/s0.83 ± 0.350.94 ± 0.381.00 ± 0.461.14 ± 0.55<.0011.13 ± 0.621.23 ± 0.651.19 ± 0.601.39 ± 0.77.004
Mean velocity (AP), cm/s0.83 ± 0.351.01 ± 0.411.07 ± 0.371.32 ± 0.68<.0011.13 ± 0.631.40 ± 0.741.37 ± 0.571.68 ± 0.85<.001
SD of velocity (ML), cm/s1.38 ± 0.581.56 ± 0.641.68 ± 0.781.91 ± 0.94<.0011.89 ± 1.042.07 ± 1.101.99 ± 1.022.34 ± 1.28.003
SD of velocity (AP), cm/s1.38 ± 0.591.68 ± 0.701.77 ± 0.632.18 ± 1.12<.0011.87 ± 1.052.32 ± 1.212.29 ± 0.972.81 ± 1.38<.001
Power of A-area (ML), %25.68 ± 6.3226.37 ± 7.3426.78 ± 7.4627.40 ± 7.81.28822.02 ± 6.2222.65 ± 7.2024.62 ± 7.4124.13 ± 9.10.011
Power of B-area (ML), %60.02 ± 6.3959.09 ± 6.7358.76 ± 7.6157.99 ± 7.41.05962.08 ± 6.5560.88 ± 6.8360.15 ± 7.7560.58 ± 8.62.011
Power of C-area (ML), %14.30 ± 4.1814.54 ± 4.3814.46 ± 4.6514.61 ± 4.31.82015.90 ± 4.5016.48 ± 5.0515.23 ± 4.5415.29 ± 5.41.027
Power of A-area (AP), %30.48 ± 7.0326.54 ± 7.4527.32 ± 7.4527.65 ± 7.77<.00124.01 ± 6.3521.69 ± 7.1423.09 ± 7.8323.04 ± 8.03<.001
Power of B-area (AP), %52.86 ± 6.4054.88 ± 6.7454.37 ± 7.0153.92 ± 6.09<.00157.57 ± 6.2557.52 ± 6.7056.40 ± 8.3057.67 ± 6.68.946
Power of C-area (AP), %16.66 ± 5.2918.58 ± 5.7618.31 ± 6.2118.43 ± 6.29<.00118.42 ± 5.5520.79 ± 6.5420.51 ± 6.3119.30 ± 6.56<.001

Notes: AD, Alzheimer’s disease; AP, anterior–posterior; APOE, apolipoprotein E; DLB, dementia with Lewy bodies; ML, medio–lateral; RMS, root mean square; SD, standard deviation; VaD, vascular dementia.

All variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation. The p values calculated by 1-way analysis of variance are presented.

Table 3.

Patients’ Postural Sway Parameters

Eyes-open conditionEyes-closed condition
NC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
p ValueNC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
p Value
Mean path length, cm/s1.51 ± 0.681.82 ± 0.761.92 ± 0.782.28 ± 1.24<.0012.11 ± 1.272.53 ± 1.412.45 ± 1.132.91 ± 1.59<.001
RMS, cm0.73 ± 0.200.80 ± 0.230.89 ± 0.281.04 ± 0.32<.0010.79 ± 0.270.89 ± 0.320.94 ± 0.321.10 ± 0.36<.001
RMS (ML), cm0.45 ± 0.150.53 ± 0.180.59 ± 0.220.69 ± 0.26<.0010.50 ± 0.200.59 ± 0.240.62 ± 0.250.74 ± 0.30<.001
RMS (AP), cm0.57 ± 0.180.58 ± 0.180.65 ± 0.230.76 ± 0.23<.0010.60 ± 0.220.66 ± 0.250.69 ± 0.240.80 ± 0.26<.001
Rectangular area, cm28.76 ± 5.8911.20 ± 8.0313.99 ± 10.8820.11 ± 14.96<.00112.46 ± 11.9615.84 ± 13.6717.72 ± 14.9222.78 ± 18.77<.001
RMS area, cm21.81 ± 1.102.15 ± 1.332.73 ± 1.973.70 ± 2.26<.0012.19 ± 1.822.82 ± 2.333.08 ± 2.264.18 ± 2.87<.001
Center of position (ML), cm0.11 ± 0.820.14 ± 0.950.01 ± 1.12−0.05 ± 1.26.5960.01 ± 0.870.05 ± 0.990.03 ± 1.18−0.21 ± 1.33.505
Center of position (AP), cm−0.84 ± 1.41−0.75 ± 1.60−1.22 ± 1.71−0.99 ± 1.99.016−0.50 ± 1.45−0.47 ± 1.62−0.95 ± 1.76−0.89 ± 2.01.038
SD of position (ML), cm0.45 ± 0.150.53 ± 0.180.59 ± 0.220.69 ± 0.26<.0010.50 ± 0.200.59 ± 0.240.62 ± 0.250.74 ± 0.30<.001
SD of position (AP), cm0.57 ± 0.180.58 ± 0.180.65 ± 0.230.76 ± 0.23<.0010.60 ± 0.220.66 ± 0.250.69 ± 0.240.80 ± 0.26<.001
Mean velocity (ML), cm/s0.83 ± 0.350.94 ± 0.381.00 ± 0.461.14 ± 0.55<.0011.13 ± 0.621.23 ± 0.651.19 ± 0.601.39 ± 0.77.004
Mean velocity (AP), cm/s0.83 ± 0.351.01 ± 0.411.07 ± 0.371.32 ± 0.68<.0011.13 ± 0.631.40 ± 0.741.37 ± 0.571.68 ± 0.85<.001
SD of velocity (ML), cm/s1.38 ± 0.581.56 ± 0.641.68 ± 0.781.91 ± 0.94<.0011.89 ± 1.042.07 ± 1.101.99 ± 1.022.34 ± 1.28.003
SD of velocity (AP), cm/s1.38 ± 0.591.68 ± 0.701.77 ± 0.632.18 ± 1.12<.0011.87 ± 1.052.32 ± 1.212.29 ± 0.972.81 ± 1.38<.001
Power of A-area (ML), %25.68 ± 6.3226.37 ± 7.3426.78 ± 7.4627.40 ± 7.81.28822.02 ± 6.2222.65 ± 7.2024.62 ± 7.4124.13 ± 9.10.011
Power of B-area (ML), %60.02 ± 6.3959.09 ± 6.7358.76 ± 7.6157.99 ± 7.41.05962.08 ± 6.5560.88 ± 6.8360.15 ± 7.7560.58 ± 8.62.011
Power of C-area (ML), %14.30 ± 4.1814.54 ± 4.3814.46 ± 4.6514.61 ± 4.31.82015.90 ± 4.5016.48 ± 5.0515.23 ± 4.5415.29 ± 5.41.027
Power of A-area (AP), %30.48 ± 7.0326.54 ± 7.4527.32 ± 7.4527.65 ± 7.77<.00124.01 ± 6.3521.69 ± 7.1423.09 ± 7.8323.04 ± 8.03<.001
Power of B-area (AP), %52.86 ± 6.4054.88 ± 6.7454.37 ± 7.0153.92 ± 6.09<.00157.57 ± 6.2557.52 ± 6.7056.40 ± 8.3057.67 ± 6.68.946
Power of C-area (AP), %16.66 ± 5.2918.58 ± 5.7618.31 ± 6.2118.43 ± 6.29<.00118.42 ± 5.5520.79 ± 6.5420.51 ± 6.3119.30 ± 6.56<.001
Eyes-open conditionEyes-closed condition
NC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
p ValueNC
N = 423
AD
N = 1 206
DLB
N = 111
VaD
N = 49
p Value
Mean path length, cm/s1.51 ± 0.681.82 ± 0.761.92 ± 0.782.28 ± 1.24<.0012.11 ± 1.272.53 ± 1.412.45 ± 1.132.91 ± 1.59<.001
RMS, cm0.73 ± 0.200.80 ± 0.230.89 ± 0.281.04 ± 0.32<.0010.79 ± 0.270.89 ± 0.320.94 ± 0.321.10 ± 0.36<.001
RMS (ML), cm0.45 ± 0.150.53 ± 0.180.59 ± 0.220.69 ± 0.26<.0010.50 ± 0.200.59 ± 0.240.62 ± 0.250.74 ± 0.30<.001
RMS (AP), cm0.57 ± 0.180.58 ± 0.180.65 ± 0.230.76 ± 0.23<.0010.60 ± 0.220.66 ± 0.250.69 ± 0.240.80 ± 0.26<.001
Rectangular area, cm28.76 ± 5.8911.20 ± 8.0313.99 ± 10.8820.11 ± 14.96<.00112.46 ± 11.9615.84 ± 13.6717.72 ± 14.9222.78 ± 18.77<.001
RMS area, cm21.81 ± 1.102.15 ± 1.332.73 ± 1.973.70 ± 2.26<.0012.19 ± 1.822.82 ± 2.333.08 ± 2.264.18 ± 2.87<.001
Center of position (ML), cm0.11 ± 0.820.14 ± 0.950.01 ± 1.12−0.05 ± 1.26.5960.01 ± 0.870.05 ± 0.990.03 ± 1.18−0.21 ± 1.33.505
Center of position (AP), cm−0.84 ± 1.41−0.75 ± 1.60−1.22 ± 1.71−0.99 ± 1.99.016−0.50 ± 1.45−0.47 ± 1.62−0.95 ± 1.76−0.89 ± 2.01.038
SD of position (ML), cm0.45 ± 0.150.53 ± 0.180.59 ± 0.220.69 ± 0.26<.0010.50 ± 0.200.59 ± 0.240.62 ± 0.250.74 ± 0.30<.001
SD of position (AP), cm0.57 ± 0.180.58 ± 0.180.65 ± 0.230.76 ± 0.23<.0010.60 ± 0.220.66 ± 0.250.69 ± 0.240.80 ± 0.26<.001
Mean velocity (ML), cm/s0.83 ± 0.350.94 ± 0.381.00 ± 0.461.14 ± 0.55<.0011.13 ± 0.621.23 ± 0.651.19 ± 0.601.39 ± 0.77.004
Mean velocity (AP), cm/s0.83 ± 0.351.01 ± 0.411.07 ± 0.371.32 ± 0.68<.0011.13 ± 0.631.40 ± 0.741.37 ± 0.571.68 ± 0.85<.001
SD of velocity (ML), cm/s1.38 ± 0.581.56 ± 0.641.68 ± 0.781.91 ± 0.94<.0011.89 ± 1.042.07 ± 1.101.99 ± 1.022.34 ± 1.28.003
SD of velocity (AP), cm/s1.38 ± 0.591.68 ± 0.701.77 ± 0.632.18 ± 1.12<.0011.87 ± 1.052.32 ± 1.212.29 ± 0.972.81 ± 1.38<.001
Power of A-area (ML), %25.68 ± 6.3226.37 ± 7.3426.78 ± 7.4627.40 ± 7.81.28822.02 ± 6.2222.65 ± 7.2024.62 ± 7.4124.13 ± 9.10.011
Power of B-area (ML), %60.02 ± 6.3959.09 ± 6.7358.76 ± 7.6157.99 ± 7.41.05962.08 ± 6.5560.88 ± 6.8360.15 ± 7.7560.58 ± 8.62.011
Power of C-area (ML), %14.30 ± 4.1814.54 ± 4.3814.46 ± 4.6514.61 ± 4.31.82015.90 ± 4.5016.48 ± 5.0515.23 ± 4.5415.29 ± 5.41.027
Power of A-area (AP), %30.48 ± 7.0326.54 ± 7.4527.32 ± 7.4527.65 ± 7.77<.00124.01 ± 6.3521.69 ± 7.1423.09 ± 7.8323.04 ± 8.03<.001
Power of B-area (AP), %52.86 ± 6.4054.88 ± 6.7454.37 ± 7.0153.92 ± 6.09<.00157.57 ± 6.2557.52 ± 6.7056.40 ± 8.3057.67 ± 6.68.946
Power of C-area (AP), %16.66 ± 5.2918.58 ± 5.7618.31 ± 6.2118.43 ± 6.29<.00118.42 ± 5.5520.79 ± 6.5420.51 ± 6.3119.30 ± 6.56<.001

Notes: AD, Alzheimer’s disease; AP, anterior–posterior; APOE, apolipoprotein E; DLB, dementia with Lewy bodies; ML, medio–lateral; RMS, root mean square; SD, standard deviation; VaD, vascular dementia.

All variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation. The p values calculated by 1-way analysis of variance are presented.

The adjusted odds ratio of the effects of each dementia type (in comparison with NC) on postural control parameters calculated using a linear regression model are shown in Table 4. Overall, participants with dementia presented with a greater range, displacement, and velocity of CoP movement than did those with NC, after adjustment for covariates. Postural control parameters in AD participants were not significantly different from those in the NC group in the eyes-open condition. In contrast, in the eyes-closed condition, AD participants were found to have significantly different postural control characteristics compared to those in individuals with NC, except for the position of the center of position and some of the power spectrum parameters: (coefficient [95% confidence interval] Mean path length = 0.43 [0.13 to 0.72]; RMS = 0.12 [0.05 to 0.20]; Rectangular area = 5.00 [1.92 to 8.08]; the values for all the parameters analyzed are shown in Table 4). DLB and VaD participants also showed different postural control characteristics compared to those shown by individuals with NC in several parameters, although there were no marked differences between the eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions. DLB was characterized by a standing position with a posterior CoP position; DLB participants kept their center of mass backward (ie, stooped posture), especially in the eyes-open condition, as demonstrated by the results corresponding to the center of CoP position (AP) (coefficient [95% CI], −0.60 [−1.16 to −0.05]). Among the 3 types of dementia in this study, only VaD did not affect the power spectrum parameters: (eg, coefficient [95% confidence interval] Power of A-area (ML) in eyes-open condition = 1.88 [−1.56 to 5.32]; Power of A-area (ML) in eyes-closed condition = 0.40 [−2.95 to 3.75]).

Table 4.

Effect of Dementia on the Postural Sway Parameters Estimated by Multi Variable Linear Regression

Eyes-open conditionEyes-closed condition
AD (ref. NC)DLB (ref. NC)VaD (ref. NC)AD (ref. NC)DLB (ref. NC)VaD (ref. NC)
Mean path length 0.06 [−0.11 to 0.22] 0.21 [−0.03 to 0.45]0.42 [0.10 to 0.73]0.43 [0.13 to 0.72] 0.27 [−0.17 to 0.71] 0.43 [−0.14 to 1.01]
RMS 0.00 [−0.05 to 0.06]0.14 [0.06 to 0.23]0.21 [0.10 to 0.31]0.12 [0.05 to 0.20]0.22 [0.10 to 0.33]0.28 [0.13 to 0.43]
RMS (ML) 0.02 [−0.02 to 0.07]0.13 [0.07 to 0.20]0.18 [0.09 to 0.26]0.09 [0.03 to 0.15]0.17 [0.09 to 0.26]0.23 [0.12 to 0.34]
RMS (AP)−0.01 [−0.06 to 0.03]0.08 [0.01 to 0.15]0.12 [0.03 to 0.21]0.08 [0.02 to 0.14]0.14 [0.04 to 0.23]0.18 [0.06 to 0.30]
Rectangular area 0.20 [−1.72 to 2.11]4.32 [1.50 to 7.14]8.08 [4.38 to 11.79]5.00 [1.92 to 8.08]8.74 [4.20 to 13.28]8.93 [2.96 to 14.89]
RMS area 0.00 [−0.32 to 0.33]0.88 [0.40 to 1.35]1.35 [0.73 to 1.98]0.88 [0.31 to 1.44]1.51 [0.67 to 2.34]1.88 [0.78 to 2.98]
Center of position (ML) 0.02 [−0.22 to 0.25]−0.07 [−0.41 to 0.28] 0.23 [−0.23 to 0.69] 0.07 [−0.18 to 0.32] 0.22 [−0.15 to 0.59] 0.33 [−0.15 to 0.82]
Center of position (AP)−0.08 [−0.45 to 0.30]0.60 [1.16 to0.05]−0.17 [−0.89 to 0.56]−0.09 [−0.49 to 0.30]−0.49 [−1.07 to 0.10]−0.26 [−1.02 to 0.51]
SD of position (ML) 0.02 [−0.02 to 0.07]0.13 [0.07 to 0.20]0.18 [0.09 to 0.26]0.09 [0.03 to 0.15]0.17 [0.09 to 0.26]0.23 [0.12 to 0.34]
SD of position (AP)−0.01 [−0.06 to 0.03]0.08 [0.01 to 0.15]0.12 [0.03 to 0.21]0.08 [0.02 to 0.14]0.14 [0.04 to 0.23]0.18 [0.06 to 0.30]
Mean velocity (ML) 0.02 [−0.07 to 0.11]0.18 [0.04 to 0.31]0.24 [0.07 to 0.41]0.19 [0.04 to 0.34]0.22 [0.00 to 0.44]0.32 [0.03 to 0.61]
Mean velocity (AP) 0.04 [−0.05 to 0.12] 0.10 [−0.03 to 0.23]0.27 [0.11 to 0.44]0.25 [0.10 to 0.40] 0.15 [−0.08 to 0.37]0.29 [0.00 to 0.59]
SD of velocity (ML) 0.03 [−0.12 to 0.18]0.30 [0.08 to 0.52]0.41 [0.12 to 0.70]0.34 [0.09 to 0.60] 0.36 [−0.01 to 0.74]0.55 [0.06 to 1.05]
SD of velocity (AP) 0.06 [−0.08 to 0.21] 0.16 [−0.05 to 0.38]0.47 [0.19 to 0.76]0.42 [0.16 to 0.67] 0.26 [−0.12 to 0.63]0.51 [0.02 to 1.00]
Power of A-area (ML) 1.21 [−0.56 to 2.99] 1.61 [−1.01 to 4.23] 1.88 [−1.56 to 5.32]−0.37 [−2.10 to 1.36]3.68 [1.13 to 6.23] 0.40 [−2.95 to 3.75]
Power of B-area (ML)−1.80 [−3.52 to −0.08]−1.57 [−4.11 to 0.97]−1.94 [−5.28 to 1.40]−1.09 [−2.82 to 0.65]2.77 [5.32 to0.21]−0.32 [−3.68 to 3.04]
Power of C-area (ML) 0.58 [−0.51 to 1.67]−0.04 [−1.64 to 1.57] 0.06 [−2.05 to 2.17]1.45 [0.22 to 2.69]−0.91 [−2.73 to 0.91]−0.08 [−2.48 to 2.31]
Power of A-area (AP)−1.56 [−3.29 to 0.18]−0.56 [−3.11 to 1.99]−0.42 [−3.78 to 2.93]−0.70 [−2.45 to 1.05] 1.57 [−1.02 to 4.15] 1.39 [−2.00 to 4.79]
Power of B-area (AP) 1.13 [−0.51 to 2.77] 0.35 [−2.07 to 2.76] 1.97 [−1.20 to 5.15]−0.02 [−1.71 to 1.66]−0.98 [−3.46 to 1.50] 1.48 [−1.79 to 4.74]
Power of C-area (AP) 0.43 [−0.96 to 1.81] 0.21 [−1.83 to 2.26]−1.55 [−4.23 to 1.14] 0.72 [−0.79 to 2.24]−0.59 [−2.82 to 1.64]−2.87 [−5.81 to 0.06]
Eyes-open conditionEyes-closed condition
AD (ref. NC)DLB (ref. NC)VaD (ref. NC)AD (ref. NC)DLB (ref. NC)VaD (ref. NC)
Mean path length 0.06 [−0.11 to 0.22] 0.21 [−0.03 to 0.45]0.42 [0.10 to 0.73]0.43 [0.13 to 0.72] 0.27 [−0.17 to 0.71] 0.43 [−0.14 to 1.01]
RMS 0.00 [−0.05 to 0.06]0.14 [0.06 to 0.23]0.21 [0.10 to 0.31]0.12 [0.05 to 0.20]0.22 [0.10 to 0.33]0.28 [0.13 to 0.43]
RMS (ML) 0.02 [−0.02 to 0.07]0.13 [0.07 to 0.20]0.18 [0.09 to 0.26]0.09 [0.03 to 0.15]0.17 [0.09 to 0.26]0.23 [0.12 to 0.34]
RMS (AP)−0.01 [−0.06 to 0.03]0.08 [0.01 to 0.15]0.12 [0.03 to 0.21]0.08 [0.02 to 0.14]0.14 [0.04 to 0.23]0.18 [0.06 to 0.30]
Rectangular area 0.20 [−1.72 to 2.11]4.32 [1.50 to 7.14]8.08 [4.38 to 11.79]5.00 [1.92 to 8.08]8.74 [4.20 to 13.28]8.93 [2.96 to 14.89]
RMS area 0.00 [−0.32 to 0.33]0.88 [0.40 to 1.35]1.35 [0.73 to 1.98]0.88 [0.31 to 1.44]1.51 [0.67 to 2.34]1.88 [0.78 to 2.98]
Center of position (ML) 0.02 [−0.22 to 0.25]−0.07 [−0.41 to 0.28] 0.23 [−0.23 to 0.69] 0.07 [−0.18 to 0.32] 0.22 [−0.15 to 0.59] 0.33 [−0.15 to 0.82]
Center of position (AP)−0.08 [−0.45 to 0.30]0.60 [1.16 to0.05]−0.17 [−0.89 to 0.56]−0.09 [−0.49 to 0.30]−0.49 [−1.07 to 0.10]−0.26 [−1.02 to 0.51]
SD of position (ML) 0.02 [−0.02 to 0.07]0.13 [0.07 to 0.20]0.18 [0.09 to 0.26]0.09 [0.03 to 0.15]0.17 [0.09 to 0.26]0.23 [0.12 to 0.34]
SD of position (AP)−0.01 [−0.06 to 0.03]0.08 [0.01 to 0.15]0.12 [0.03 to 0.21]0.08 [0.02 to 0.14]0.14 [0.04 to 0.23]0.18 [0.06 to 0.30]
Mean velocity (ML) 0.02 [−0.07 to 0.11]0.18 [0.04 to 0.31]0.24 [0.07 to 0.41]0.19 [0.04 to 0.34]0.22 [0.00 to 0.44]0.32 [0.03 to 0.61]
Mean velocity (AP) 0.04 [−0.05 to 0.12] 0.10 [−0.03 to 0.23]0.27 [0.11 to 0.44]0.25 [0.10 to 0.40] 0.15 [−0.08 to 0.37]0.29 [0.00 to 0.59]
SD of velocity (ML) 0.03 [−0.12 to 0.18]0.30 [0.08 to 0.52]0.41 [0.12 to 0.70]0.34 [0.09 to 0.60] 0.36 [−0.01 to 0.74]0.55 [0.06 to 1.05]
SD of velocity (AP) 0.06 [−0.08 to 0.21] 0.16 [−0.05 to 0.38]0.47 [0.19 to 0.76]0.42 [0.16 to 0.67] 0.26 [−0.12 to 0.63]0.51 [0.02 to 1.00]
Power of A-area (ML) 1.21 [−0.56 to 2.99] 1.61 [−1.01 to 4.23] 1.88 [−1.56 to 5.32]−0.37 [−2.10 to 1.36]3.68 [1.13 to 6.23] 0.40 [−2.95 to 3.75]
Power of B-area (ML)−1.80 [−3.52 to −0.08]−1.57 [−4.11 to 0.97]−1.94 [−5.28 to 1.40]−1.09 [−2.82 to 0.65]2.77 [5.32 to0.21]−0.32 [−3.68 to 3.04]
Power of C-area (ML) 0.58 [−0.51 to 1.67]−0.04 [−1.64 to 1.57] 0.06 [−2.05 to 2.17]1.45 [0.22 to 2.69]−0.91 [−2.73 to 0.91]−0.08 [−2.48 to 2.31]
Power of A-area (AP)−1.56 [−3.29 to 0.18]−0.56 [−3.11 to 1.99]−0.42 [−3.78 to 2.93]−0.70 [−2.45 to 1.05] 1.57 [−1.02 to 4.15] 1.39 [−2.00 to 4.79]
Power of B-area (AP) 1.13 [−0.51 to 2.77] 0.35 [−2.07 to 2.76] 1.97 [−1.20 to 5.15]−0.02 [−1.71 to 1.66]−0.98 [−3.46 to 1.50] 1.48 [−1.79 to 4.74]
Power of C-area (AP) 0.43 [−0.96 to 1.81] 0.21 [−1.83 to 2.26]−1.55 [−4.23 to 1.14] 0.72 [−0.79 to 2.24]−0.59 [−2.82 to 1.64]−2.87 [−5.81 to 0.06]

Notes: AD = Alzheimer’s disease; AP = anterior–posterior; DLB = dementia with Lewy bodies; ML = medio–lateral; RMS = root mean square; SD = standard deviation; VaD = vascular dementia.

The effects of each type of dementia for postural sway parameters, relative to normal cognition are presented as estimated coefficient (95% confidence interval). Bold type represents statistical significance (p < .05).

Table 4.

Effect of Dementia on the Postural Sway Parameters Estimated by Multi Variable Linear Regression

Eyes-open conditionEyes-closed condition
AD (ref. NC)DLB (ref. NC)VaD (ref. NC)AD (ref. NC)DLB (ref. NC)VaD (ref. NC)
Mean path length 0.06 [−0.11 to 0.22] 0.21 [−0.03 to 0.45]0.42 [0.10 to 0.73]0.43 [0.13 to 0.72] 0.27 [−0.17 to 0.71] 0.43 [−0.14 to 1.01]
RMS 0.00 [−0.05 to 0.06]0.14 [0.06 to 0.23]0.21 [0.10 to 0.31]0.12 [0.05 to 0.20]0.22 [0.10 to 0.33]0.28 [0.13 to 0.43]
RMS (ML) 0.02 [−0.02 to 0.07]0.13 [0.07 to 0.20]0.18 [0.09 to 0.26]0.09 [0.03 to 0.15]0.17 [0.09 to 0.26]0.23 [0.12 to 0.34]
RMS (AP)−0.01 [−0.06 to 0.03]0.08 [0.01 to 0.15]0.12 [0.03 to 0.21]0.08 [0.02 to 0.14]0.14 [0.04 to 0.23]0.18 [0.06 to 0.30]
Rectangular area 0.20 [−1.72 to 2.11]4.32 [1.50 to 7.14]8.08 [4.38 to 11.79]5.00 [1.92 to 8.08]8.74 [4.20 to 13.28]8.93 [2.96 to 14.89]
RMS area 0.00 [−0.32 to 0.33]0.88 [0.40 to 1.35]1.35 [0.73 to 1.98]0.88 [0.31 to 1.44]1.51 [0.67 to 2.34]1.88 [0.78 to 2.98]
Center of position (ML) 0.02 [−0.22 to 0.25]−0.07 [−0.41 to 0.28] 0.23 [−0.23 to 0.69] 0.07 [−0.18 to 0.32] 0.22 [−0.15 to 0.59] 0.33 [−0.15 to 0.82]
Center of position (AP)−0.08 [−0.45 to 0.30]0.60 [1.16 to0.05]−0.17 [−0.89 to 0.56]−0.09 [−0.49 to 0.30]−0.49 [−1.07 to 0.10]−0.26 [−1.02 to 0.51]
SD of position (ML) 0.02 [−0.02 to 0.07]0.13 [0.07 to 0.20]0.18 [0.09 to 0.26]0.09 [0.03 to 0.15]0.17 [0.09 to 0.26]0.23 [0.12 to 0.34]
SD of position (AP)−0.01 [−0.06 to 0.03]0.08 [0.01 to 0.15]0.12 [0.03 to 0.21]0.08 [0.02 to 0.14]0.14 [0.04 to 0.23]0.18 [0.06 to 0.30]
Mean velocity (ML) 0.02 [−0.07 to 0.11]0.18 [0.04 to 0.31]0.24 [0.07 to 0.41]0.19 [0.04 to 0.34]0.22 [0.00 to 0.44]0.32 [0.03 to 0.61]
Mean velocity (AP) 0.04 [−0.05 to 0.12] 0.10 [−0.03 to 0.23]0.27 [0.11 to 0.44]0.25 [0.10 to 0.40] 0.15 [−0.08 to 0.37]0.29 [0.00 to 0.59]
SD of velocity (ML) 0.03 [−0.12 to 0.18]0.30 [0.08 to 0.52]0.41 [0.12 to 0.70]0.34 [0.09 to 0.60] 0.36 [−0.01 to 0.74]0.55 [0.06 to 1.05]
SD of velocity (AP) 0.06 [−0.08 to 0.21] 0.16 [−0.05 to 0.38]0.47 [0.19 to 0.76]0.42 [0.16 to 0.67] 0.26 [−0.12 to 0.63]0.51 [0.02 to 1.00]
Power of A-area (ML) 1.21 [−0.56 to 2.99] 1.61 [−1.01 to 4.23] 1.88 [−1.56 to 5.32]−0.37 [−2.10 to 1.36]3.68 [1.13 to 6.23] 0.40 [−2.95 to 3.75]
Power of B-area (ML)−1.80 [−3.52 to −0.08]−1.57 [−4.11 to 0.97]−1.94 [−5.28 to 1.40]−1.09 [−2.82 to 0.65]2.77 [5.32 to0.21]−0.32 [−3.68 to 3.04]
Power of C-area (ML) 0.58 [−0.51 to 1.67]−0.04 [−1.64 to 1.57] 0.06 [−2.05 to 2.17]1.45 [0.22 to 2.69]−0.91 [−2.73 to 0.91]−0.08 [−2.48 to 2.31]
Power of A-area (AP)−1.56 [−3.29 to 0.18]−0.56 [−3.11 to 1.99]−0.42 [−3.78 to 2.93]−0.70 [−2.45 to 1.05] 1.57 [−1.02 to 4.15] 1.39 [−2.00 to 4.79]
Power of B-area (AP) 1.13 [−0.51 to 2.77] 0.35 [−2.07 to 2.76] 1.97 [−1.20 to 5.15]−0.02 [−1.71 to 1.66]−0.98 [−3.46 to 1.50] 1.48 [−1.79 to 4.74]
Power of C-area (AP) 0.43 [−0.96 to 1.81] 0.21 [−1.83 to 2.26]−1.55 [−4.23 to 1.14] 0.72 [−0.79 to 2.24]−0.59 [−2.82 to 1.64]−2.87 [−5.81 to 0.06]
Eyes-open conditionEyes-closed condition
AD (ref. NC)DLB (ref. NC)VaD (ref. NC)AD (ref. NC)DLB (ref. NC)VaD (ref. NC)
Mean path length 0.06 [−0.11 to 0.22] 0.21 [−0.03 to 0.45]0.42 [0.10 to 0.73]0.43 [0.13 to 0.72] 0.27 [−0.17 to 0.71] 0.43 [−0.14 to 1.01]
RMS 0.00 [−0.05 to 0.06]0.14 [0.06 to 0.23]0.21 [0.10 to 0.31]0.12 [0.05 to 0.20]0.22 [0.10 to 0.33]0.28 [0.13 to 0.43]
RMS (ML) 0.02 [−0.02 to 0.07]0.13 [0.07 to 0.20]0.18 [0.09 to 0.26]0.09 [0.03 to 0.15]0.17 [0.09 to 0.26]0.23 [0.12 to 0.34]
RMS (AP)−0.01 [−0.06 to 0.03]0.08 [0.01 to 0.15]0.12 [0.03 to 0.21]0.08 [0.02 to 0.14]0.14 [0.04 to 0.23]0.18 [0.06 to 0.30]
Rectangular area 0.20 [−1.72 to 2.11]4.32 [1.50 to 7.14]8.08 [4.38 to 11.79]5.00 [1.92 to 8.08]8.74 [4.20 to 13.28]8.93 [2.96 to 14.89]
RMS area 0.00 [−0.32 to 0.33]0.88 [0.40 to 1.35]1.35 [0.73 to 1.98]0.88 [0.31 to 1.44]1.51 [0.67 to 2.34]1.88 [0.78 to 2.98]
Center of position (ML) 0.02 [−0.22 to 0.25]−0.07 [−0.41 to 0.28] 0.23 [−0.23 to 0.69] 0.07 [−0.18 to 0.32] 0.22 [−0.15 to 0.59] 0.33 [−0.15 to 0.82]
Center of position (AP)−0.08 [−0.45 to 0.30]0.60 [1.16 to0.05]−0.17 [−0.89 to 0.56]−0.09 [−0.49 to 0.30]−0.49 [−1.07 to 0.10]−0.26 [−1.02 to 0.51]
SD of position (ML) 0.02 [−0.02 to 0.07]0.13 [0.07 to 0.20]0.18 [0.09 to 0.26]0.09 [0.03 to 0.15]0.17 [0.09 to 0.26]0.23 [0.12 to 0.34]
SD of position (AP)−0.01 [−0.06 to 0.03]0.08 [0.01 to 0.15]0.12 [0.03 to 0.21]0.08 [0.02 to 0.14]0.14 [0.04 to 0.23]0.18 [0.06 to 0.30]
Mean velocity (ML) 0.02 [−0.07 to 0.11]0.18 [0.04 to 0.31]0.24 [0.07 to 0.41]0.19 [0.04 to 0.34]0.22 [0.00 to 0.44]0.32 [0.03 to 0.61]
Mean velocity (AP) 0.04 [−0.05 to 0.12] 0.10 [−0.03 to 0.23]0.27 [0.11 to 0.44]0.25 [0.10 to 0.40] 0.15 [−0.08 to 0.37]0.29 [0.00 to 0.59]
SD of velocity (ML) 0.03 [−0.12 to 0.18]0.30 [0.08 to 0.52]0.41 [0.12 to 0.70]0.34 [0.09 to 0.60] 0.36 [−0.01 to 0.74]0.55 [0.06 to 1.05]
SD of velocity (AP) 0.06 [−0.08 to 0.21] 0.16 [−0.05 to 0.38]0.47 [0.19 to 0.76]0.42 [0.16 to 0.67] 0.26 [−0.12 to 0.63]0.51 [0.02 to 1.00]
Power of A-area (ML) 1.21 [−0.56 to 2.99] 1.61 [−1.01 to 4.23] 1.88 [−1.56 to 5.32]−0.37 [−2.10 to 1.36]3.68 [1.13 to 6.23] 0.40 [−2.95 to 3.75]
Power of B-area (ML)−1.80 [−3.52 to −0.08]−1.57 [−4.11 to 0.97]−1.94 [−5.28 to 1.40]−1.09 [−2.82 to 0.65]2.77 [5.32 to0.21]−0.32 [−3.68 to 3.04]
Power of C-area (ML) 0.58 [−0.51 to 1.67]−0.04 [−1.64 to 1.57] 0.06 [−2.05 to 2.17]1.45 [0.22 to 2.69]−0.91 [−2.73 to 0.91]−0.08 [−2.48 to 2.31]
Power of A-area (AP)−1.56 [−3.29 to 0.18]−0.56 [−3.11 to 1.99]−0.42 [−3.78 to 2.93]−0.70 [−2.45 to 1.05] 1.57 [−1.02 to 4.15] 1.39 [−2.00 to 4.79]
Power of B-area (AP) 1.13 [−0.51 to 2.77] 0.35 [−2.07 to 2.76] 1.97 [−1.20 to 5.15]−0.02 [−1.71 to 1.66]−0.98 [−3.46 to 1.50] 1.48 [−1.79 to 4.74]
Power of C-area (AP) 0.43 [−0.96 to 1.81] 0.21 [−1.83 to 2.26]−1.55 [−4.23 to 1.14] 0.72 [−0.79 to 2.24]−0.59 [−2.82 to 1.64]−2.87 [−5.81 to 0.06]

Notes: AD = Alzheimer’s disease; AP = anterior–posterior; DLB = dementia with Lewy bodies; ML = medio–lateral; RMS = root mean square; SD = standard deviation; VaD = vascular dementia.

The effects of each type of dementia for postural sway parameters, relative to normal cognition are presented as estimated coefficient (95% confidence interval). Bold type represents statistical significance (p < .05).

The adjusted odds ratio from the direct comparison between the 3 dementia types is shown in Supplementary Table 1. Compared to that of AD, DLB, and VaD had significantly larger values for many parameters such as root mean square and standard deviation of position. This characteristic was also observed in the eyes-closed condition, but it was more prominent in the eyes-open condition. In contrast, when comparing DLB and VaD, none of the parameters, except for standard deviation of velocity (AP) in the eyes-open condition were significantly different. Parameters in the power spectrum domain were found to have fewer items with differences than those in other domains (Supplementary Table 1).

Discussion

In this study, we examined the differences in postural control characteristics among 3 types of dementia. The results revealed that patients with different types of dementia exhibit different postural control strategies. Patients with AD were characterized by differences between the eyes-open and eyes-closed condition. Those with DLB exhibited a distinctive posture in which their center of mass was positioned backward. Those with VaD showed greater postural sway values compared to patients affected by the other 2 types of dementia in the distance, area, and velocity domains. However, none of the parameters in the power spectrum domain presented significant differences.

Overall, patients with dementia sustained their upright posture by displacing their CoP to a greater extent compared to individuals with normal cognition, which agrees with the results of previous studies (7,16,18–21). However, some of the results for individual parameters were inconsistent with those from previous studies. Deschamps et al. concluded that MCI or mild to moderate AD affects the velocity domain more than the distance/length domain of postural control parameters (18). In contrast, in our study, dementia affected all these domains (distance, length, and velocity domains) similarly. For instance, AD did not affect any of these parameters compared with patients with NC in the test with the eyes-open condition; In the test with the eyes-closed condition, however, AD affected all these parameters. Although the reason for the difference between the results of the current study and those of Deschamps et al. is unclear, methodological differences may have contributed. They used age and BMI as matching variables but did not consider other factors that affect postural sway parameters. We obtained more robust results by using a larger sample size and adjusting for multiple covariates including ADL function, mental function, and medication status that might mediate postural control parameters. However, further validation is warranted, especially in considering racial differences such as body size.

Previous studies of healthy older adults suggest that poorer balance associated with normal aging may be due to a functional decline in the CNS (ie, central postural control systems) rather than of the peripheral sensorimotor system (37). Postural control modification in patients with dementia could also reflect the pathological modification in the CNS. This study confirmed that patients with dementia have increased postural sway, even when we restricted the analysis to patients without peripheral neuropathy or muscle weakness that would interfere with ADLs. This highlights the hypothesis that changes in postural control in patients with dementia also reflect pathological changes in the central nervous system.

Compared to individuals with NC, patients with AD did not present significant differences in postural control in the eyes-open condition; however, they showed differences in postural control in the eyes-closed condition, which suggests that CNS dysfunction caused by AD might attenuate the postural adjustment response that follows blinding. When the eyes are closed, standing balance is maintained by increasing reliance on the vestibular sensory and somatosensory systems. However, in patients with AD, the center of mass motion may be increased owing to inadequate compensation as a result of impaired integration of sensory information in the postural center systems. Although the mechanism underlying the impaired postural control in patients with dementia is not sufficiently understood yet, some previous studies have shown potential associations between postural control and the volume of the basal ganglia (eg, nucleus accumbens and putamen), as well as with the volume and neurometabolite levels in areas related to memory function such as the hippocampus (20–22). Moreover, decreased acetylcholine levels in the brain due to AD may negatively affect postural control because the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus, which is rich in cholinergic neurons, plays an important role in postural control (38–40). Analyses focusing on the association between postural control and structural/functional connectivity (such as the default mode network) or investigations on the effects of dementia at the brainstem level may reveal new aspects of AD in the future.

The result that patients with DLB kept their center of mass backward may partially reflect abnormal postural reflexes in Parkinsonism. The pull test may become an effective physical assessment tool in clinical practice in cases where it is difficult to distinguish DLB from other dementia disorders (41,42). Patients with VaD showed significantly different postural control characteristics compared to those shown by NC individuals in a wide number of parameters. They also exhibited more evident changes in the comparison between the 3 types of dementia. Because regional periventricular hyperintensity and deep white matter hyperintensity in patients with AD are associated with postural sway parameters (14), the current finding in patients with VaD may reflect the effects of diffuse white matter lesions on various brain regions. The association between postural control and brain imaging, especially in patients with VaD, is an important topic for future investigation.

Previous studies have examined motor control in patients with dementia, particularly focusing on gait (43–48). Gait characteristics are represented by several parameters, such as stride length and cadence. It is becoming clear that variability, rather than the pace or rhythm, is a more important domain associated with dementia and cognitive function (47). Increased variability in step length or time (reduced symmetry or consistency) may partially reflect abnormalities in postural control. The difference between maintaining an upright posture and gait is that the former involves static postural control while the latter involves dynamic postural control. However, because few studies have compared static and dynamic postural control in patients with dementia, the effect of these postural control strategies on the diagnosis, management, and treatment of dementia has not been properly described. Further research is needed to confirm the difference between static and dynamic motor control strategies in order to establish a motor control-based dementia diagnosis/classification method in the future.

The results of this study are relatively robust because we analyzed a large sample of patients compared to that in previous studies (18,21); however, there are several limitations regarding the study design. First, external validity was limited because this was a single-center study with no validation cohort. Further investigations targeting not only the clinical setting but also various populations are needed to verify the applicability of postural control-based diagnosis and classification of dementia in the future. Second, as participants in the control group were individuals who visited the memory clinic with subjective cognitive concerns, their health status was uncertain, which could have led to biased results. Further comparisons with healthy older adults living in the community are required to obtain more robust results. Third, because we focused on 20 highly interpretable parameters (40 parameters if the eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions are considered separately) in this study, not all parameters of CoP trajectory testing that have been validated in previous studies were used. Quijoux et al. identified 66 potentially reliable parameters (31). Moreover, based on the idea that the high complexity of the CoP trajectory reflects the ability to adapt to environmental modifications, mathematical approaches such as chaos analysis (7,31) have been considered in recent years. Finally, we did not strictly specify the presence of peripheral neuropathy, which could have potentially affected the results of this study. On the other hand, considering that diabetes is a major cause of peripheral neuropathy in middle-aged and older adults (49), the potential confounding effect of peripheral neuropathy would have been minimized in this study because participants with diabetes were excluded from the analysis.

In conclusion, different types of dementia have different postural controls. The results of this study provide insight into the mechanisms underlying the balance and gait dysfunction in patients with dementia, which are particularly important in dementia care. Moreover, the findings also present the possibility of postural control testing as a non-invasive and simple approach for investigating central nervous system abnormalities related to dementia.

Funding

This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI grants (grant numbers JP22K21229 and JP23KJ2224) and the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology (NCGG) Research Funding for Longevity Sciences (grant number 22-23). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, and preparation of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

None.

Acknowledgments

We thank Reiko Kawa and Saeko Omura for data preparation. The authors also thank the BioBank at the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology for quality control of the clinical data.

References

1.

GBD 2019 Dementia Forecasting Collaborators
.
Estimation of the global prevalence of dementia in 2019 and forecasted prevalence in 2050: An analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
.
Lancet Pub Health
.
2022
;
7
(
2
):
e105
e125
. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00249-8

2.

Nandi
A
,
Counts
N
,
Chen
S
, et al. .
Global and regional projections of the economic burden of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias from 2019 to 2050: A value of statistical life approach
.
EClinic Med
.
2022
;
51
:
101580
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101580

3.

Connors
MH
,
Seeher
K
,
Teixeira-Pinto
A
,
Woodward
M
,
Ames
D
,
Brodaty
H.
Dementia and caregiver burden: A three-year longitudinal study
.
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry.
2020
;
35
(
2
):
250
258
. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.5244

4.

Kamiya
M
,
Sakurai
T
,
Ogama
N
,
Maki
Y
,
Toba
K.
Factors associated with increased caregivers’ burden in several cognitive stages of Alzheimer’s disease
.
Geriatr Gerontol Int
.
2014
;
14
(
Suppl 2
):
45
55
. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.12260

5.

Montero-Odasso
M
,
Pieruccini-Faria
F
,
Ismail
Z
, et al. .
CCCDTD5 recommendations on early non cognitive markers of dementia: A Canadian consensus
.
Alzheimers Dement
.
2020
;
6
(
1
):
e12068
. https://doi.org/10.1002/trc2.12068

6.

Masters
MC
,
Morris
JC
,
Roe
CM.
“Noncognitive” symptoms of early Alzheimer disease
.
Neurology.
2015
;
84
(
6
):
617
622
. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001238

7.

Ashiri
M
,
Francisco
C
,
Winkler
J
,
Lithgow
B
,
Moussavi
Z.
Postural sway characteristics are affected by Alzheimer’s disease
.
IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Annu Int Conf
.
2021
;
2021
:
7219
7222
. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC46164.2021.9630746

8.

Fujisawa
C
,
Umegaki
H
,
Okamoto
K
, et al. .
Physical function differences between the stages from normal cognition to moderate Alzheimer disease
.
J Am Med Dir Assoc.
2017
;
18
(
4
):
368.e9
368.e15
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2016.12.079

9.

Karmali
F
,
Goodworth
AD
,
Valko
Y
,
Leeder
T
,
Peterka
RJ
,
Merfeld
DM.
The role of vestibular cues in postural sway
.
J Neurophysiol.
2021
;
125
(
2
):
672
686
. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00168.2020

10.

Wiesmeier
IK
,
Dalin
D
,
Maurer
C.
Elderly use proprioception rather than visual and vestibular cues for postural motor control
.
Front Aging Neurosci.
2015
;
7
:
97
. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00097

11.

Montero‐Odasso
M
,
Muir
S
,
Speechley
M.
Dual-task complexity affects gait in people with mild cognitive impairment: the interplay between gait variability, dual tasking, and risk of falls
.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2012
;
93
(
2
):
293
299
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.026

12.

Tinetti
ME
,
Speechley
M
,
Ginter
SF.
Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community
.
N Engl J Med.
1988
;
319
(
26
):
1701
1707
. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198812293192604

13.

Verghese
J
,
Holtzer
R
,
Lipton
RB
,
Wang
C.
Quantitative gait markers and incident fall risk in older adults
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci.
2009
;
64
(
8
):
896
901
. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glp033

14.

Ogama
N
,
Sakurai
T
,
Shimizu
A
,
Toba
K.
Regional white matter lesions predict falls in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease
.
J Am Med Dir Assoc.
2014
;
15
(
1
):
36
41
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2013.11.004

15.

Verghese
J
,
Robbins
M
,
Holtzer
R
, et al. .
Gait dysfunction in mild cognitive impairment syndromes
.
J Am Geriatr Soc.
2008
;
56
(
7
):
1244
1251
. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01758.x

16.

Kuan
Y-C
,
Huang
L-K
,
Wang
Y-H
, et al. .
Balance and gait performance in older adults with early-stage cognitive impairment
.
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med
.
2021
;
57
(
4
):
560
567
. https://doi.org/10.23736/S1973-9087.20.06550-8

17.

Kozinc
Z
,
Löfler
S
,
Hofer
C
,
Carraro
U
,
Šarabon
N.
Diagnostic balance tests for assessing risk of falls and distinguishing older adult fallers and non-fallers: A systematic review with meta-analysis
.
Diagnostics
.
2020
;
10
(
9
):
667
. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10090667

18.

Deschamps
T
,
Beauchet
O
,
Annweiler
C
,
Cornu
C
,
Mignardot
J-B.
Postural control and cognitive decline in older adults: Position versus velocity implicit motor strategy
.
Gait Posture
.
2014
;
39
(
1
):
628
630
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.07.001

19.

Mignardot
J-B
,
Beauchet
O
,
Annweiler
C
,
Cornu
C
,
Deschamps
T.
Postural sway, falls, and cognitive status: A cross-sectional study among older adults
.
J Alzheimers Dis.
2014
;
41
(
2
):
431
439
. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-132657

20.

Sparto
PJ
,
Rosso
AL
,
Divecha
AA
,
Metti
AL
,
Rosano
C.
Shared neural substrates of cognitive function and postural control in older adults
.
Alzheimer’s Dement
.
2020
;
16
(
4
):
621
629
. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12053

21.

Lee
Y-W
,
Lee
H
,
Chung
I-S
,
Yi
H.
Relationship between postural instability and subcortical volume loss in Alzheimer’s disease
.
Medicine.
2017
;
96
(
25
):
e7286
. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007286

22.

Levin
O
,
Vints
WAJ
,
Ziv
G
, et al. .
Neurometabolic correlates of posturography in normal aging and older adults with mild cognitive impairment: Evidence from a 1H-MRS study
.
Neuroimage Clin
.
2023
;
37
:
103304
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nicl.2022.103304

23.

Crockett
RA
,
Hsu
CL
,
Best
JR
,
Liu-Ambrose
T.
Resting state default mode network connectivity, dual task performance, gait speed, and postural sway in older adults with mild cognitive impairment
.
Front Aging Neurosci.
2017
;
9
:
423
. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2017.00423

24.

Arvanitakis
Z
,
Shah
RC
,
Bennett
DA.
Diagnosis and management of dementia: A review
.
JAMA.
2019
;
322
(
16
):
1589
1599
. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.4782

25.

Perreault
EJ
,
Kirsch
RF
,
Acosta
AM.
Multiple-input, multiple-output system identification for characterization of limb stiffness dynamics
.
Biol Cybern.
1999
;
80
(
5
):
327
337
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004220050529

26.

Kawai
Y
,
Miura
R
,
Tsujimoto
M
, et al. .
Neuropsychological differentiation between Alzheimer’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies in a memory clinic
.
Psychogeriatrics
.
2013
;
13
(
3
):
157
163
. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyg.12019

27.

McKhann
GM
,
Knopman
DS
,
Chertkow
H
, et al. .
The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease
.
Alzheimers Dement
.
2011
;
7
(
3
):
263
269
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005

28.

McKeith
IG
,
Boeve
BF
,
Dickson
DW
, et al. .
Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies: Fourth consensus report of the DLB Consortium
.
Neurology.
2017
;
89
(
1
):
88
100
. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000004058

29.

Sachdev
P
,
Kalaria
R
,
O’Brien
J
, et al. ;
International Society for Vascular Behavioral and Cognitive Disorders
.
Diagnostic criteria for vascular cognitive disorders: A VASCOG statement
.
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord.
2014
;
28
(
3
):
206
218
. https://doi.org/10.1097/WAD.0000000000000034

30.

Demura
S-I
,
Kitabayashi
T
,
Aoki
H.
Body-sway characteristics during a static upright posture in the elderly
.
Geriatr Gerontol Int
.
2008
;
8
(
3
):
188
197
. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0594.2008.00469.x

31.

Quijoux
F
,
Nicolaï
A
,
Chairi
I
, et al. .
A review of center of pressure (COP) variables to quantify standing balance in elderly people: Algorithms and open-access code
.
Physiol Rep
.
2021
;
9
(
22
):
e15067
. https://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.15067

32.

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
(
3
):
189
198
. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6

33.

Yesavage
JA
,
Brink
TL
,
Rose
TL
, et al. .
Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report
.
J Psychiatr Res.
1982
;
17
(
1
):
37
49
. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(82)90033-4

34.

Mahoney
FI
,
Barthel
DW.
Functional evaluation: The barthel index
.
MD State Med J
.
1965
;
14
:
61
65
.

35.

Lee
J
,
Negm
A
,
Peters
R
,
Wong
EKC
,
Holbrook
A.
Deprescribing fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) for the prevention of falls and fall-related complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis
.
BMJ Open
.
2021
;
11
(
2
):
e035978
. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035978

36.

Seppala
LJ
,
van der Velde
N
,
Masud
T
, et al. ;
EuGMS Task and Finish Group on Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs
.
EuGMS Task and Finish group on Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs (FRIDs): Position on knowledge dissemination, management, and future research
.
Drugs Aging.
2019
;
36
(
4
):
299
307
. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-018-0622-7

37.

Colledge
NR
,
Cantley
P
,
Peaston
I
,
Brash
H
,
Lewis
S
,
Wilson
JA.
Ageing and balance: The measurement of spontaneous sway by posturography
.
Gerontology.
1994
;
40
(
5
):
273
278
. https://doi.org/10.1159/000213596

38.

Vitale
F
,
Capozzo
A
,
Mazzone
P
,
Scarnati
E.
Neurophysiology of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus
.
Neurobiol Dis.
2019
;
128
:
19
30
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbd.2018.03.004

39.

Craig
CE
,
Jenkinson
NJ
,
Brittain
J-S
, et al. .
Pedunculopontine nucleus microstructure predicts postural and gait symptoms in Parkinson’s Disease
.
Mov Disord.
2020
;
35
(
7
):
1199
1207
. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.28051

40.

Müller
MLTM
,
Albin
RL
,
Kotagal
V
, et al. .
Thalamic cholinergic innervation and postural sensory integration function in Parkinson’s disease
.
Brain.
2013
;
136
(
Pt 11
):
3282
3289
. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt247

41.

Goetz
CG
,
Tilley
BC
,
Shaftman
SR
, et al. ;
Movement Disorder Society UPDRS Revision Task Force
.
Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): Scale presentation and clinimetric testing results
.
Mov Disord.
2008
;
23
(
15
):
2129
2170
. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22340

42.

Hunt
AL
,
Sethi
KD.
The pull test: A history
.
Mov Disord.
2006
;
21
(
7
):
894
899
. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.20925

43.

Beauchet
O
,
Annweiler
C
,
Callisaya
ML
, et al. .
Poor gait performance and prediction of dementia: Results from a meta-analysis
.
J Am Med Dir Assoc.
2016
;
17
(
6
):
482
490
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2015.12.092

44.

Darweesh
SKL
,
Licher
S
,
Wolters
FJ
,
Koudstaal
PJ
,
Ikram
MK
,
Ikram
MA.
Quantitative gait, cognitive decline, and incident dementia: The Rotterdam Study
.
Alzheimers Dement
.
2019
;
15
(
10
):
1264
1273
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.03.013

45.

Koppelmans
V
,
Silvester
B
,
Duff
K.
Neural mechanisms of motor dysfunction in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review
.
J Alzheimers Dis Rep
.
2022
;
6
(
1
):
307
344
. https://doi.org/10.3233/ADR-210065

46.

Mc Ardle
R
,
Galna
B
,
Donaghy
P
,
Thomas
A
,
Rochester
L.
Do Alzheimer’s and Lewy body disease have discrete pathological signatures of gait
?
Alzheimers Dement
.
2019
;
15
(
10
):
1367
1377
. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2019.06.4953

47.

Pieruccini-Faria
F
,
Black
SE
,
Masellis
M
, et al. .
Gait variability across neurodegenerative and cognitive disorders: Results from the Canadian Consortium of Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) and the Gait and Brain Study
.
Alzheimers Dement
.
2021
;
17
(
8
):
1317
1328
. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12298

48.

Rosso
AL
,
Verghese
J
,
Metti
AL
, et al. .
Slowing gait and risk for cognitive impairment: The hippocampus as a shared neural substrate
.
Neurology.
2017
;
89
(
4
):
336
342
. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000004153

49.

Hicks
CW
,
Wang
D
,
Windham
BG
,
Matsushita
K
,
Selvin
E.
Prevalence of peripheral neuropathy defined by monofilament insensitivity in middle-aged and older adults in two US cohorts
.
Sci Rep.
2021
;
11
(
1
):
19159
. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98565-w

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Decision Editor: Lewis A Lipsitz, MD, FGSA
Lewis A Lipsitz, MD, FGSA
Decision Editor
(Medical Sciences Section)
Search for other works by this author on: