The Temporal Association Between Executive Function and Life-Space Mobility in Old Age

The Temporal Association Between Executive Function and Life-Space Mobility in Old Age Abstract Background Life-space mobility, an indicator of community mobility, describes person’s movements in terms of the distance from home, the frequency of movement, and the need of assistance for movement. Executive function (EF) is a higher-order cognitive function that supervises motor control and plays a key role in a person’s ability to function independently. Cognitive impairment often co-occurs with restricted life-space mobility; however, the direction of the longitudinal associations between EF and life-space mobility is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the temporal associations between EF and life-space mobility among community-dwelling older people. Methods One hundred eight community-dwelling persons aged 76 to 91 years participated in the 2 year follow-up study. EF was measured with the Trail Making Test. The Life-Space Assessment (range 0–120, higher scores indicate more mobility) was used to assess life-space mobility. Cross-lagged model design was used to examine longitudinal relationship between EF and life-space mobility. The model was adjusted for age and gender. Results Average age of participants at baseline was 82.2 (SD 4.1) years and 59% were women. Better EF at baseline predicted higher life-space mobility at follow-up (path coefficient = 3.81, 95% confidential interval; 0.84, 6.78, p = .012), whereas baseline life-space mobility did not predict EF at follow-up. Conclusion EF was a determinant of life-space mobility. Supporting EF may enhance maintaining independence and active participation in old age. Cognitive aging, Motor control, Successful aging Life-space mobility reflects a person’s physical ability as well as psychosocial capability relative to the environmental requirements (1). Life-space mobility assessment includes estimates of the distance, the frequency, and the need of assistance for mobility (1). Moving outside more often and traveling further away from home on a regular basis may be viewed as higher environmental complexity of mobility among older people (2,3). The further away from one’s home an individual moves the more complex the environment and the greater cognitive investments might be required (2). There is evidence that older people with better cognitive function have larger life-space mobility (4). Executive function (EF) has an important role in performance of control processes, which are required when planning and carrying out complex, goal-oriented tasks (5). Therefore, EF might be an important higher-order cognitive domain for older people enabling them to maintain their life-space mobility (6). Coexisting mobility limitations and cognitive impairments are prevalent among community-dwelling older people (7) interfering with their independency and active participation in society. However, according to previous studies, the direction of the association between cognition and mobility is inconsistent (8). There are some evidence from longitudinal studies which used Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a measure of cognitive functioning, that having greater life-space mobility may be a protective factor for cognitive decline (3,9). Furthermore, constricted life-space mobility has been found to be associated with increased risk of Alzheimer diseases and mild cognitive impairment (10). Impaired EF is prevalent even among community-dwelling older people without a formal diagnosis of cognitive impairment and has been found to be associated with longitudinal declines in functional status (11–13). Furthermore, one previous study suggests that poor EF measured with the Trail Making Test (TMT) is a strong predictor of decline in lower extremity function (14), which is known to be associated with constricted life-space mobility (15). The results of a recent study reported TMT performance being associated with gait adaptation indicating that EF is important for planning and adjusting stepping in situations where rapid gait adjustment may be needed (16). Thus, the importance of EF may increase as task complexity increases in unfamiliar environments farther away from home. The TMT performance requires among other things attention, cognitive flexibility, and task switching (5) that are cognitive processes needed for everyday challenges for older people when moving around in environment (16). Consequently, using EF as a measure of cognitive functioning when investigating temporal association between cognition and life-space mobility could add useful information to current literature. The aim of this study was to assess the temporal association between EF and life-space mobility. Establishing the direction of the association between EF and life-space mobility might help us to target interventions more accurately to the factor in which declines seem to appear first. Methods Study Population At baseline, altogether 169 community-dwelling people aged 76 to 91 years participated in the Hearing, Cognition, and Wellbeing Study. Face-to-face interviews and sensory, physical, and cognitive functioning measurements were conducted in the participants’ homes. Of the initial 169 persons, 108 participated in the follow-up study 2 years later (32 were not interested to participate, 19 had deceased, one moved outside study area, and nine were not reached) and formed the analytic sample of this study. The participants of the current study were part of the Life-Space Mobility in Old Age (LISPE) study, described in detail previously (17). LISPE is a population-based study among community living older people including 848 participants. Using random number tables, a subset of 230 individuals was selected for the Hearing, Cognition, and Wellbeing substudy in year 2014 (18). Those willing to participate and who did not experience severe problems in communicating underwent the examinations and interviews during spring 2014 (n = 169). The Hearing, Cognition and Wellbeing substudy sample (n = 169) did not differ from the initial LISPE study sample (N = 848) in terms of sex, age, years of education, number of chronic conditions, lower extremity performance measured with the short physical performance battery (SPPB), or cognitive functioning measured with MMSE (all p-values > .127). The LISPE study and the Hearing, Cognition, and Wellbeing substudy both comply with the principles of good scientific conduct and good clinical practice in all aspects of the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Jyväskylä. All participants gave a written informed consent. Executive Function EF was measured with TMT. The TMT is a paper-and-pencil task providing information on visual search, attention, processing speed, cognitive flexibility, and EF (19,20). The TMT consists of two parts. In the TMT-A task, participants were asked to make a trail with a pencil, sequentially drawing lines to connect randomly arranged encircled numbers (from 1 to 25) spread over a sheet of paper. In the TMT-B task, participants were asked to make a trail in numeric and alphabetical order (1-A-2-B-3-C, etc.) by drawing lines to connect randomly arranged encircles containing numbers (from 1 to 13) and letters (from A to L) spread over a sheet. The participants were asked to perform the task as quickly as possible without lifting the pencil from the paper. If an error occurred, the examiner pointed it out immediately. Then, the participants were asked to revert to last correct number or letter and continue there to complete the task at the expense of additional time. Time to complete each task was measured in seconds (21,22). A maximum accepted time to complete each part of the test was 240 seconds and maximum accepted amount of errors was 4 6,21,23. δ-TMT was calculated by subtracting time to perform TMT-A from time to perform TMT-B to control for the effects of motor function, visual scanning, and processing speed. δ-TMT has been used in previous studies to indicate executive functioning (24,25). EF was categorized into three approximately equal distribution-based groups as follows. At baseline and follow-up, poor EF included those who started to do the TMT test but who could not complete the test an acceptable way; they did not perform TMT-A or TMT-B tasks within the given time (max 240 seconds), or made more than four errors, or who did not complete the task so that δ-TMT could not have been calculated (6). Intermediate EF included those whose δ-TMT was between 95 and 179 seconds at the baseline and between 97 and 180 seconds at the follow-up. Good EF included those whose δ-TMT was 94 seconds or less at the baseline and 97 seconds or less at the follow-up. The cutoff between intermediate and good EF was defined according to the median value of δ-TMT among those who completed the tests. Life-Space Mobility Life- space mobility was measured with the 15-item University of Alabama at Birmingham Study of Aging Life-Space Assessment (LSA) (1), which was translated into Finnish (26). The reliability of the Finnish translation of life-space assessment has been found to be acceptable (26). Life-space mobility assessment measures person’s actual mobility during 4 weeks preceding the assessment on the following life-space levels (=level score): bedroom (score 0), other rooms (1), outside home (2), neighborhood (3), town (4), beyond town (5). Participants were also asked how many times they attained each life-space level (=frequency score): daily (score 4), 4–6 times/week (3), 1–3 times/week (2), less than once a week(1), and whether they needed help from another person or used assistive device (=assistance score): no assistance (2), use of device only (1.5), personal assistance (1). A composite score was calculated as follows: level score × frequency score × assistance score at respective level, and then summed for all levels. Thus, a composite score reflects distance, frequency, and independence of movement and was used as an indicator of life-space mobility (26). The score ranges between 0 and 120, and higher scores indicated higher life-space mobility (17,26). Covariates and Descriptive Variables Participants’ age and gender derived from the national population register were used as covariates in the analysis. Number of self-reported chronic conditions, global cognitive functioning, and lower extremity functioning were used to describe the characteristics of the participants. Number of self-reported chronic conditions were calculated from a list of 22 physician-diagnosed diseases and an additional open-ended question about any other physician-diagnosed chronic diseases (15,17). Global cognitive functioning was assessed with MMSE, range 0–30 (27). Lower extremity functioning was assessed with SPPB. The test battery comprises three tests assessing standing balance, walking speed over a distance of 2.44 m, and time taken to complete five chair rises. Each test is rated from 0 to 4 points according to established age- and gender-specific cutoff points (28,29). A sum score (range 1–12) was calculated if at least two of the tests were completed. Higher scores indicate better lower extremity function (6,15). Statistical Analyses The longitudinal cross-lagged associations between EF and life-space mobility were estimated using cross-lagged model design. Cross-lagged analysis enables to study whether EF at baseline is associated with life-space mobility at follow-up after controlling for life-space mobility at baseline, or vice versa. The unstandardized values were used in the analyses. A weighted least square estimator was used to obtain parameter estimates. The model was adjusted for age and gender. The analysis were performed with MPLUS version 5.21 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2009) which uses the full information maximum likelihood procedure for handling missing values. The proportion of missing data in individual variables varied between 2.7% and 4.6%. The interaction between gender and EF on life-space mobility was not statistically significant (p > .185); thus, all analyses were pooled by gender. For all tests, two-tailed p-values are reported and the level of significance was set at p < .05. The descriptive data analyses were carried out with SPSS IBM version 24.0 (SPSS, Armonk, NY, IBM Corp.). Results Characteristics of the study participants at baseline and follow-up are presented in Table 1. The average age of the participants at baseline was 82.2 years (SD 4.1) and 59.3% of them were women. The proportion of those with poor EF increased during the 2 year follow-up from 24.3% to 29.5%. However, the global cognition measured with Mini-Mental State Examination remained nearly stable during the 2 year follow-up period. The average composite score of life-space mobility declined during the 2 year follow-up from 63.1 (SD 19.7) to 61.5 (SD 21.2) (Table1). Table 1. Means, SD, and proportions of characteristics of participants at baseline and at 2 year follow-up (n = 108) Baseline Follow-up % % Women 59.3 59.2 Executive function (n = 103)  Good 41.7 37.1  Intermediate 34.0 33.0  Poor 24.3 29.5 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Age 82.2 (4.1) 84.3 (4.1) Life-space mobility 63.1 (19.7) 61.5 (21.2) Number of chronic conditions 3.2 (1.6) 3.4 (1.7) Cognitive functioning (MMSE) 26.3 (2.7) 26.2 (3.0) Lower extremity function (SPPB) 9.21 (2.1) 9.10 (2.2)† Baseline Follow-up % % Women 59.3 59.2 Executive function (n = 103)  Good 41.7 37.1  Intermediate 34.0 33.0  Poor 24.3 29.5 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Age 82.2 (4.1) 84.3 (4.1) Life-space mobility 63.1 (19.7) 61.5 (21.2) Number of chronic conditions 3.2 (1.6) 3.4 (1.7) Cognitive functioning (MMSE) 26.3 (2.7) 26.2 (3.0) Lower extremity function (SPPB) 9.21 (2.1) 9.10 (2.2)† Note: MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination; SPPB = Short physical performance battery. †n =106. View Large Table 1. Means, SD, and proportions of characteristics of participants at baseline and at 2 year follow-up (n = 108) Baseline Follow-up % % Women 59.3 59.2 Executive function (n = 103)  Good 41.7 37.1  Intermediate 34.0 33.0  Poor 24.3 29.5 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Age 82.2 (4.1) 84.3 (4.1) Life-space mobility 63.1 (19.7) 61.5 (21.2) Number of chronic conditions 3.2 (1.6) 3.4 (1.7) Cognitive functioning (MMSE) 26.3 (2.7) 26.2 (3.0) Lower extremity function (SPPB) 9.21 (2.1) 9.10 (2.2)† Baseline Follow-up % % Women 59.3 59.2 Executive function (n = 103)  Good 41.7 37.1  Intermediate 34.0 33.0  Poor 24.3 29.5 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Age 82.2 (4.1) 84.3 (4.1) Life-space mobility 63.1 (19.7) 61.5 (21.2) Number of chronic conditions 3.2 (1.6) 3.4 (1.7) Cognitive functioning (MMSE) 26.3 (2.7) 26.2 (3.0) Lower extremity function (SPPB) 9.21 (2.1) 9.10 (2.2)† Note: MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination; SPPB = Short physical performance battery. †n =106. View Large Figure 1 shows the unstandardized coefficients of cross-lagged model with 2 year follow-up for EF and life-space mobility. At baseline, better EF was associated with higher life-space mobility. Both EF and life-space mobility showed relatively strong stability between baseline and follow-up assessments. After controlling for age, gender, and taking into account previous measurements of EF and life-space mobility, the analysis revealed that better EF at baseline predicted higher life-space mobility at follow-up (path coefficient = 3.81, 95% confidential interval; 0.84, 6.78, p = .012), whereas baseline life-space mobility was not associated with EF at follow-up (Figure 1). The cross-lagged model fitted the data well Comparative Fit Index was 1.000, Tucker Lewis Index was 1.000, and root mean square error approximation less than 0.0005. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Unstandardized coefficients (95% confidence intervals) of cross-lagged model with 2 year follow-up for EF and life-space mobility adjusted for age and gender (n = 108). Path coefficients are statistically significant if zero is not included in the confidential intervals. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Unstandardized coefficients (95% confidence intervals) of cross-lagged model with 2 year follow-up for EF and life-space mobility adjusted for age and gender (n = 108). Path coefficients are statistically significant if zero is not included in the confidential intervals. Compared with those who did not participate in the follow-up study (n = 61), those who participated (n = 108) were younger (82.2 years, SD 4.1 vs. 83.6 years, SD 4.3, p = .038), and they had higher SPPB (9.3, SD 2.0 vs. 7.2, SD 3.4, p < .001), MMSE (26.3, SD 2.7 vs. 25.4, SD 2.5, p = .033), and life-space mobility scores (63.1, SD 19.7 vs. 51.2, SD 20.4, p < .001) at baseline. The proportion of those who dropped out was highest among those with poor EF (53.7%), followed by those with intermediate (30.0%) or good (18.9%) EF. Those with poor EF at baseline were five times (OR = 4.99, 95% CI 2.09, 11.92), and those with intermediate EF almost two times (OR =1.84, 95% CI 0.74, 4.61) more likely to drop out from the follow-up compared with those with good EF. Finally, we conducted additional cross-lagged modeling; first, to examine a stricter cut-point for good TMT, second, to analyze MMSE as an indicator of global cognition, and third, using δ-TMT as a continuous variable. Using more strict cut-points suggested by an earlier study (good δ-TMT performance < 60 seconds) (30) to define good EF (at baseline cut-point for good EF was ≤60 seconds and at follow-up ≤72 seconds) did not change the results. The analysis for MMSE and life-space mobility revealed similar associations as with using EF; coefficients and 95% confidential intervals for baseline MMSE predicting follow-up life-space was 1.22 (0.29, 2.15) and baseline life-space mobility predicting follow-up MMSE 0.01(−0.01, 0.03). The associations for EF as a continuous variable and life-space mobility among those who completed both parts of the TMT test (n = 78) were not statistically significant in either of the directions. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, we were the first to examine the temporal association between EF and life-space mobility among community-dwelling older people. Better EF at baseline predicted higher life-space mobility at follow-up, whereas baseline life-space mobility did not predict EF at follow-up. Thus, our findings suggest that impaired EF is a precedent for restricted life-space mobility rather than restriction of life-space would further influence cognitive decline. It is obvious in the light of previous studies that cognition is interrelated with mobility (7). In addition to emerging literature on the associations between cognitive function and mobility, we were using specific higher-order cognitive domain, EF, and a multidimensional mobility measure, life-space mobility, as measurements. Life-space mobility reflects person’s actual mobility through a given area over a specific time period and incorporates not only physical aspects of mobility but also psychosocial capability for participation in society (1). Furthermore, we examined which one of these measurements, EF or life-space mobility, is a stronger predictor for one another, whereas previous studies have predicted associations only for one of the possible directions (9,10). This was done by using analysis that enables simultaneous examination of longitudinal influences of one factor on the other and vice versa, while controlling for contemporary associations between factors, and the stability of each factor over time. The association between EF and mobility has been reported being bidirectional (8,31). However, our results are in line with some of the previous studies suggesting that EF is a predictor for mobility decline (12–14) and conflicting the previous results that suggest that life-space mobility predicts changes in cognitive functioning (3,9,10). The latter might be explained by the fact that neither of the studies had EF as a measure of cognitive functioning. After all, a person might have some deficit of EF, despite evident cognitive impairment (12). According to the environmental complexity theory, a more demanding environment requires more cognitive investment leading to increase in cognitive activity consequently resulting in better cognitive functioning (2). However, our results suggest that higher-order cognitive functioning such as executive functioning is a prerequisite for the capability to move further away from home and enabling to widen one’s life-space. Life-space mobility is a mobility measure that takes into account all movement in its’ different forms through one’s environment. The life-space mobility reaching only to one’s close neighborhood may require less cognitive investment than if an individual would be orienteering oneself further away from a familiar environment, and perhaps using a vehicle for transportation. Reduction in life-space mobility may reflect early changes in cognitive functioning. Impairment in EF may affect an individual’s willingness to travel further away from home even before any other markers of cognitive decline have appeared. Restricted life-space mobility may be seen as an early sign of cognitive decline resulting from EF impairment. In recent years, the understanding of the role of the brain in age-related declines in mobility has increased (32,33). Furthermore, EF has been identified as one of the potential mediators between age-related cognitive decline and functional ability (34). Cognitive processes such as attention, action-inhibition, and task-switching are dependent on EF and needed for motor control (35). These control processes are primarily supported by frontal areas of the brain that are most vulnerable in the aging process (35), which might potentially explain the causal relationship between EF and life-space mobility. Decline in life-space mobility has been found to be associated with decline in quality of life (36) and development of ADL disability (37). Our earlier study suggested that poor EF may predict a steeper decline in life-space mobility but the results did not quite reach statistical significant; hence, the causal association between EF and life-space mobility stayed unclear (6). However, the result of this study confirms our earlier suggestions of EF being a predictor of life-space mobility. Furthermore, poorer lower extremity functioning and difficulties in use of transportation partly explained the association between poor EF and lower life-space mobility (6). Thus, we did not adjust for SPPB as it being potential mediator between EF and life-space mobility (6). Future studies should examine if promoting EF by means of cognitive training interventions could possibly delay mobility limitations that further diminish life-space mobility. Our study had several strengths. By using life-space mobility and EF as measurements in this study, we were able to further existing literature relative to association between cognitive functioning and mobility. Furthermore, we were able to include considerable old people (range 78–93 years at follow-up) from all social strata into this study, and the participant did not have severe cognitive decline at baseline (mean MMSE 26.3, SD 2.7, and 12% < 23). In addition, we used computer-assisted face-to-face interviews by trained interviewers at participants’ homes, which probably improve the quality of data. Furthermore, we conducted several further modeling to test our results. Using more strict cut-points for good EF showed that the results were not dependent on the intermediate-good cut-point. The results of the cross-lagged model using MMSE instead of EF as the cognitive measure revealed similar associations. We found no statistically significant associations in either of directions when using EF measure as a continuous variable in cross-lagged modeling. This suggests that the cross-lagged association between baseline EF and follow-up life-space mobility observed in the larger sample where all the participants were included was driven by the poor values. This also supports our finding that the null life space mobility—EF association was not due to the scale properties of the categorized EF variable but rather due to the absence of a causal relationship. We are aware that the limited sample size in these sensitivity analyses decreases power even further; however, the coefficient is so low that it may not be considered material. Our study had some limitations. First of all, due to the fact that the participants with poorer functioning were more likely to drop out from the follow-up study, the results can be generalized only to somewhat better functioning community-dwelling older adults, and it is probably that the strength of the associations over time may be underestimated. Second, we had only a 2 year follow-up. Although this is a significant time period among older people to experience noticeable changes in functional capability, a longer follow-up period might reveal stronger effects. Third, we were using a single test to measure EF instead of multiple tests due to time constraints in the study protocol considering that the participants were very old. Although TMT is a widely used test and simple and easy to perform, further studies should use several test batteries for a more comprehensive evaluation of EF. Conclusions According to our knowledge, we were the first to explore the temporal association between EF and life-space mobility among community-dwelling older people. The results of the study suggest that better EF is a precedent for higher life-space mobility laying ground to future studies on the topic using larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods with multiple follow-up points. Supporting EF may help maintain higher life-space mobility enhancing independency and quality of life in old age. Funding This study was supported by the Academy of Finland (the Future of Living and Housing Program ASU-LIVE; grant number 255403 [to TR], number 263729 [to AV]; number 285747 [to MR]; numbers 129369, 129907, 135072, 129255, and 126775 [to JGE], and number 257239 [to MBvB]; Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture [to TR, MR, and EP]. TP-C was supported by Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation and Juho Vainio Foundation. Conflict of Interest Statement None declared. References 1. Baker PS , Bodner EV , Allman RM . Measuring life-space mobility in community-dwelling older adults . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2003 ; 51 : 1610 – 1614 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 2. Schooler C . Psychological effects of complex environments during the life span: a review and theory . Intelligence . 1984 ; 8 : 259 – 281 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 3. Crowe M , Andel R , Wadley VG , Okonkwo OC , Sawyer P , Allman RM . Life-space and cognitive decline in a community-based sample of African American and Caucasian older adults . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2008 ; 63 : 1241 – 1245 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 4. Sartori AC , Wadley VG , Clay OJ , Parisi JM , Rebok GW , Crowe M . The relationship between cognitive function and life space: the potential role of personal control beliefs . Psychol Aging . 2012 ; 27 : 364 – 374 . doi: 10.1037/a0025212 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 5. Banich MT . Executive function the search for an integrated account . Curr Dir Psychol Sci . 2009 ; 18 : 89 – 94 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 6. Poranen-Clark T , von Bonsdorff MB , Rantakokko M et al. Executive function and life-space mobility in old age . Aging Clin Exp Res . 2017 : 1 – 7 . doi:10.1007/s40520-017-0762-3 [Epub ahead of print] 7. Demnitz N , Esser P , Dawes H et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies examining the relationship between mobility and cognition in healthy older adults . Gait Posture . 2016 ; 50 : 164 – 174 . doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.08.028 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 8. Stijntjes M , Aartsen MJ , Taekema DG et al. Temporal relationship between cognitive and physical performance in middle-aged to oldest old people . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2017 ; 72 : 662 – 668 . doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw133 . Google Scholar PubMed 9. Silberschmidt S , Kumar A , Raji MM , Markides K , Ottenbacher KJ , Al Snih S . Life-space mobility and cognitive decline among Mexican Americans aged 75 years and older . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2017 ; 65 : 1514 – 1520 . doi: 10.1111/jgs.14829 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 10. James BD , Boyle PA , Buchman AS , Barnes LL , Bennett DA . Life space and risk of Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline in old age . Am J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2011 ; 19 : 961 – 969 . doi: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e318211c219 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 11. Royall DR , Palmer R , Chiodo LK , Polk MJ . Declining executive control in normal aging predicts change in functional status: the Freedom House Study . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2004 ; 52 : 346 – 352 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 12. Johnson JK , Lui LY , Yaffe K . Executive function, more than global cognition, predicts functional decline and mortality in elderly women . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2007 ; 62 : 1134 – 1141 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 13. Gross AL , Xue QL , Bandeen-Roche K et al. Declines and impairment in executive function predict onset of physical frailty . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2016 ; 71 : 1624 – 1630 . doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw067 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 14. Vazzana R , Bandinelli S , Lauretani F et al. Trail Making Test predicts physical impairment and mortality in older persons . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2010 ; 58 : 719 – 723 . doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02780.x . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 15. Portegijs E , Rantakokko M , Mikkola TM , Viljanen A , Rantanen T . Association between physical performance and sense of autonomy in outdoor activities and life-space mobility in community-dwelling older people . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2014 ; 62 : 615 – 621 . doi: 10.1111/jgs.12763 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 16. Caetano MJD , Menant JC , Schoene D , Pelicioni PH , Sturnieks DL , Lord SR . Sensorimotor and cognitive predictors of impaired gait adaptability in older people . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2016 ;72:1257–1263. doi:10.1093/gerona/ glw171 17. Rantanen T , Portegijs E , Viljanen A et al. Individual and environmental factors underlying life space of older people - study protocol and design of a cohort study on life-space mobility in old age (LISPE) . BMC Public Health . 2012 ; 12 : 1018 . doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1018 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 18. Polku H , Mikkola TM , Rantakokko M et al. Hearing and quality of life among community-dwelling older adults . J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci . 2016 . doi: gbw045 [pii]. 19. Reitan R , Wolfson D. The Halstead-Reitan Neutopsychologic Test Battery: Theory and Clinical Interpretation . 2nd ed. Tucson, AZ : Neuropsychology Press ; 1993 . 20. Strauss E , Sherman E , Spreen O. A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests. Administration, Norms, and Commentary . 3rd ed. New York, NY : Oxford University Press ; 2006 . 21. Lezak M. Neuropsychological Assessment . 3rd ed . Oxford : Oxford University Press ; 1995 . 22. Bowie CR , Harvey PD . Administration and interpretation of the Trail Making Test . Nat Protoc . 2006 ; 1 : 2277 – 2281 . doi: 10.1038/nprot.2006.390 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 23. Lezak MD. Neuropsychological Assessment . 3rd ed. USA : Oxford University Press ; 2004 . 24. Ble A , Volpato S , Zuliani G et al. Executive function correlates with walking speed in older persons: the InCHIANTI study . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2005 ; 53 : 410 – 415 . doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53157.x . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 25. Drane DL , Yuspeh RL , Huthwaite JS , Klingler LK . Demographic characteristics and normative observations for derived-trail making test indices . Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol . 2002 ; 15 : 39 – 43 . Google Scholar PubMed 26. Portegijs E , Iwarsson S , Rantakokko M , Viljanen A , Rantanen T . Life-space mobility assessment in older people in Finland; measurement properties in winter and spring . BMC Res Notes . 2014 ; 7 : 323 . doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-323 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 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 : 189 – 198 . doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 28. Guralnik JM , Simonsick EM , Ferrucci L et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission . J Gerontol . 1994 ; 49 : M85 – M94 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 29. Guralnik JM , Ferrucci L , Simonsick EM , Salive ME , Wallace RB . Lower-extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability . N Engl J Med . 1995 ; 332 : 556 – 561 . doi: 10.1056/NEJM199503023320902 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 30. Papandonatos GD , Ott BR , Davis JD , Barco PP , Carr DB . Clinical utility of the Trail Making Test as a predictor of driving performance in older adults . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2015 ; 63 : 2358 – 2364 . doi: 10.1111/jgs.13776 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 31. Tian Q , An Y , Resnick SM , Studenski S . The relative temporal sequence of decline in mobility and cognition among initially unimpaired older adults: Results from the baltimore longitudinal study of aging . Age Ageing . 2016 . doi: afw185 [pii]. 32. Holtzer R , Epstein N , Mahoney JR , Izzetoglu M , Blumen HM . Neuroimaging of mobility in aging: a targeted review . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2014 ; 69 : 1375 – 1388 . doi: 10.1093/gerona/glu052 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 33. Rosso AL , Studenski SA , Chen WG et al. Aging, the central nervous system, and mobility . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2013 ; 68 : 1379 – 1386 . doi: 10.1093/gerona/glt089 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 34. Puente AN , Lindbergh CA , Miller LS . The relationship between cognitive reserve and functional ability is mediated by executive functioning in older adults . Clin Neuropsychol . 2015 ; 29 : 67 – 81 . doi: 10.1080/13854046. 2015.1005676 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 35. Ren J , Wu YD , Chan JS , Yan JH . Cognitive aging affects motor performance and learning . Geriatr Gerontol Int . 2013 ; 13 : 19 – 27 . doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2012.00914.x . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 36. Rantakokko M , Portegijs E , Viljanen A , Iwarsson S , Kauppinen M , Rantanen T . Changes in life-space mobility and quality of life among community-dwelling older people: A 2-year follow-up study . Quality of Life Research . 2015 : 1 – 9 . 37. Portegijs E , Rantakokko M , Viljanen A , Sipilä S , Rantanen T . Identification of older people at risk of ADL disability using the life-space assessment: a longitudinal cohort study . J Am Med Dir Assoc . 2016 ; 17 : 410 – 414 . doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.12.010 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences Oxford University Press

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/the-temporal-association-between-executive-function-and-life-space-yxNvQoA1L1
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
ISSN
1079-5006
eISSN
1758-535X
D.O.I.
10.1093/gerona/glx217
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Background Life-space mobility, an indicator of community mobility, describes person’s movements in terms of the distance from home, the frequency of movement, and the need of assistance for movement. Executive function (EF) is a higher-order cognitive function that supervises motor control and plays a key role in a person’s ability to function independently. Cognitive impairment often co-occurs with restricted life-space mobility; however, the direction of the longitudinal associations between EF and life-space mobility is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the temporal associations between EF and life-space mobility among community-dwelling older people. Methods One hundred eight community-dwelling persons aged 76 to 91 years participated in the 2 year follow-up study. EF was measured with the Trail Making Test. The Life-Space Assessment (range 0–120, higher scores indicate more mobility) was used to assess life-space mobility. Cross-lagged model design was used to examine longitudinal relationship between EF and life-space mobility. The model was adjusted for age and gender. Results Average age of participants at baseline was 82.2 (SD 4.1) years and 59% were women. Better EF at baseline predicted higher life-space mobility at follow-up (path coefficient = 3.81, 95% confidential interval; 0.84, 6.78, p = .012), whereas baseline life-space mobility did not predict EF at follow-up. Conclusion EF was a determinant of life-space mobility. Supporting EF may enhance maintaining independence and active participation in old age. Cognitive aging, Motor control, Successful aging Life-space mobility reflects a person’s physical ability as well as psychosocial capability relative to the environmental requirements (1). Life-space mobility assessment includes estimates of the distance, the frequency, and the need of assistance for mobility (1). Moving outside more often and traveling further away from home on a regular basis may be viewed as higher environmental complexity of mobility among older people (2,3). The further away from one’s home an individual moves the more complex the environment and the greater cognitive investments might be required (2). There is evidence that older people with better cognitive function have larger life-space mobility (4). Executive function (EF) has an important role in performance of control processes, which are required when planning and carrying out complex, goal-oriented tasks (5). Therefore, EF might be an important higher-order cognitive domain for older people enabling them to maintain their life-space mobility (6). Coexisting mobility limitations and cognitive impairments are prevalent among community-dwelling older people (7) interfering with their independency and active participation in society. However, according to previous studies, the direction of the association between cognition and mobility is inconsistent (8). There are some evidence from longitudinal studies which used Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a measure of cognitive functioning, that having greater life-space mobility may be a protective factor for cognitive decline (3,9). Furthermore, constricted life-space mobility has been found to be associated with increased risk of Alzheimer diseases and mild cognitive impairment (10). Impaired EF is prevalent even among community-dwelling older people without a formal diagnosis of cognitive impairment and has been found to be associated with longitudinal declines in functional status (11–13). Furthermore, one previous study suggests that poor EF measured with the Trail Making Test (TMT) is a strong predictor of decline in lower extremity function (14), which is known to be associated with constricted life-space mobility (15). The results of a recent study reported TMT performance being associated with gait adaptation indicating that EF is important for planning and adjusting stepping in situations where rapid gait adjustment may be needed (16). Thus, the importance of EF may increase as task complexity increases in unfamiliar environments farther away from home. The TMT performance requires among other things attention, cognitive flexibility, and task switching (5) that are cognitive processes needed for everyday challenges for older people when moving around in environment (16). Consequently, using EF as a measure of cognitive functioning when investigating temporal association between cognition and life-space mobility could add useful information to current literature. The aim of this study was to assess the temporal association between EF and life-space mobility. Establishing the direction of the association between EF and life-space mobility might help us to target interventions more accurately to the factor in which declines seem to appear first. Methods Study Population At baseline, altogether 169 community-dwelling people aged 76 to 91 years participated in the Hearing, Cognition, and Wellbeing Study. Face-to-face interviews and sensory, physical, and cognitive functioning measurements were conducted in the participants’ homes. Of the initial 169 persons, 108 participated in the follow-up study 2 years later (32 were not interested to participate, 19 had deceased, one moved outside study area, and nine were not reached) and formed the analytic sample of this study. The participants of the current study were part of the Life-Space Mobility in Old Age (LISPE) study, described in detail previously (17). LISPE is a population-based study among community living older people including 848 participants. Using random number tables, a subset of 230 individuals was selected for the Hearing, Cognition, and Wellbeing substudy in year 2014 (18). Those willing to participate and who did not experience severe problems in communicating underwent the examinations and interviews during spring 2014 (n = 169). The Hearing, Cognition and Wellbeing substudy sample (n = 169) did not differ from the initial LISPE study sample (N = 848) in terms of sex, age, years of education, number of chronic conditions, lower extremity performance measured with the short physical performance battery (SPPB), or cognitive functioning measured with MMSE (all p-values > .127). The LISPE study and the Hearing, Cognition, and Wellbeing substudy both comply with the principles of good scientific conduct and good clinical practice in all aspects of the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Jyväskylä. All participants gave a written informed consent. Executive Function EF was measured with TMT. The TMT is a paper-and-pencil task providing information on visual search, attention, processing speed, cognitive flexibility, and EF (19,20). The TMT consists of two parts. In the TMT-A task, participants were asked to make a trail with a pencil, sequentially drawing lines to connect randomly arranged encircled numbers (from 1 to 25) spread over a sheet of paper. In the TMT-B task, participants were asked to make a trail in numeric and alphabetical order (1-A-2-B-3-C, etc.) by drawing lines to connect randomly arranged encircles containing numbers (from 1 to 13) and letters (from A to L) spread over a sheet. The participants were asked to perform the task as quickly as possible without lifting the pencil from the paper. If an error occurred, the examiner pointed it out immediately. Then, the participants were asked to revert to last correct number or letter and continue there to complete the task at the expense of additional time. Time to complete each task was measured in seconds (21,22). A maximum accepted time to complete each part of the test was 240 seconds and maximum accepted amount of errors was 4 6,21,23. δ-TMT was calculated by subtracting time to perform TMT-A from time to perform TMT-B to control for the effects of motor function, visual scanning, and processing speed. δ-TMT has been used in previous studies to indicate executive functioning (24,25). EF was categorized into three approximately equal distribution-based groups as follows. At baseline and follow-up, poor EF included those who started to do the TMT test but who could not complete the test an acceptable way; they did not perform TMT-A or TMT-B tasks within the given time (max 240 seconds), or made more than four errors, or who did not complete the task so that δ-TMT could not have been calculated (6). Intermediate EF included those whose δ-TMT was between 95 and 179 seconds at the baseline and between 97 and 180 seconds at the follow-up. Good EF included those whose δ-TMT was 94 seconds or less at the baseline and 97 seconds or less at the follow-up. The cutoff between intermediate and good EF was defined according to the median value of δ-TMT among those who completed the tests. Life-Space Mobility Life- space mobility was measured with the 15-item University of Alabama at Birmingham Study of Aging Life-Space Assessment (LSA) (1), which was translated into Finnish (26). The reliability of the Finnish translation of life-space assessment has been found to be acceptable (26). Life-space mobility assessment measures person’s actual mobility during 4 weeks preceding the assessment on the following life-space levels (=level score): bedroom (score 0), other rooms (1), outside home (2), neighborhood (3), town (4), beyond town (5). Participants were also asked how many times they attained each life-space level (=frequency score): daily (score 4), 4–6 times/week (3), 1–3 times/week (2), less than once a week(1), and whether they needed help from another person or used assistive device (=assistance score): no assistance (2), use of device only (1.5), personal assistance (1). A composite score was calculated as follows: level score × frequency score × assistance score at respective level, and then summed for all levels. Thus, a composite score reflects distance, frequency, and independence of movement and was used as an indicator of life-space mobility (26). The score ranges between 0 and 120, and higher scores indicated higher life-space mobility (17,26). Covariates and Descriptive Variables Participants’ age and gender derived from the national population register were used as covariates in the analysis. Number of self-reported chronic conditions, global cognitive functioning, and lower extremity functioning were used to describe the characteristics of the participants. Number of self-reported chronic conditions were calculated from a list of 22 physician-diagnosed diseases and an additional open-ended question about any other physician-diagnosed chronic diseases (15,17). Global cognitive functioning was assessed with MMSE, range 0–30 (27). Lower extremity functioning was assessed with SPPB. The test battery comprises three tests assessing standing balance, walking speed over a distance of 2.44 m, and time taken to complete five chair rises. Each test is rated from 0 to 4 points according to established age- and gender-specific cutoff points (28,29). A sum score (range 1–12) was calculated if at least two of the tests were completed. Higher scores indicate better lower extremity function (6,15). Statistical Analyses The longitudinal cross-lagged associations between EF and life-space mobility were estimated using cross-lagged model design. Cross-lagged analysis enables to study whether EF at baseline is associated with life-space mobility at follow-up after controlling for life-space mobility at baseline, or vice versa. The unstandardized values were used in the analyses. A weighted least square estimator was used to obtain parameter estimates. The model was adjusted for age and gender. The analysis were performed with MPLUS version 5.21 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2009) which uses the full information maximum likelihood procedure for handling missing values. The proportion of missing data in individual variables varied between 2.7% and 4.6%. The interaction between gender and EF on life-space mobility was not statistically significant (p > .185); thus, all analyses were pooled by gender. For all tests, two-tailed p-values are reported and the level of significance was set at p < .05. The descriptive data analyses were carried out with SPSS IBM version 24.0 (SPSS, Armonk, NY, IBM Corp.). Results Characteristics of the study participants at baseline and follow-up are presented in Table 1. The average age of the participants at baseline was 82.2 years (SD 4.1) and 59.3% of them were women. The proportion of those with poor EF increased during the 2 year follow-up from 24.3% to 29.5%. However, the global cognition measured with Mini-Mental State Examination remained nearly stable during the 2 year follow-up period. The average composite score of life-space mobility declined during the 2 year follow-up from 63.1 (SD 19.7) to 61.5 (SD 21.2) (Table1). Table 1. Means, SD, and proportions of characteristics of participants at baseline and at 2 year follow-up (n = 108) Baseline Follow-up % % Women 59.3 59.2 Executive function (n = 103)  Good 41.7 37.1  Intermediate 34.0 33.0  Poor 24.3 29.5 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Age 82.2 (4.1) 84.3 (4.1) Life-space mobility 63.1 (19.7) 61.5 (21.2) Number of chronic conditions 3.2 (1.6) 3.4 (1.7) Cognitive functioning (MMSE) 26.3 (2.7) 26.2 (3.0) Lower extremity function (SPPB) 9.21 (2.1) 9.10 (2.2)† Baseline Follow-up % % Women 59.3 59.2 Executive function (n = 103)  Good 41.7 37.1  Intermediate 34.0 33.0  Poor 24.3 29.5 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Age 82.2 (4.1) 84.3 (4.1) Life-space mobility 63.1 (19.7) 61.5 (21.2) Number of chronic conditions 3.2 (1.6) 3.4 (1.7) Cognitive functioning (MMSE) 26.3 (2.7) 26.2 (3.0) Lower extremity function (SPPB) 9.21 (2.1) 9.10 (2.2)† Note: MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination; SPPB = Short physical performance battery. †n =106. View Large Table 1. Means, SD, and proportions of characteristics of participants at baseline and at 2 year follow-up (n = 108) Baseline Follow-up % % Women 59.3 59.2 Executive function (n = 103)  Good 41.7 37.1  Intermediate 34.0 33.0  Poor 24.3 29.5 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Age 82.2 (4.1) 84.3 (4.1) Life-space mobility 63.1 (19.7) 61.5 (21.2) Number of chronic conditions 3.2 (1.6) 3.4 (1.7) Cognitive functioning (MMSE) 26.3 (2.7) 26.2 (3.0) Lower extremity function (SPPB) 9.21 (2.1) 9.10 (2.2)† Baseline Follow-up % % Women 59.3 59.2 Executive function (n = 103)  Good 41.7 37.1  Intermediate 34.0 33.0  Poor 24.3 29.5 Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Age 82.2 (4.1) 84.3 (4.1) Life-space mobility 63.1 (19.7) 61.5 (21.2) Number of chronic conditions 3.2 (1.6) 3.4 (1.7) Cognitive functioning (MMSE) 26.3 (2.7) 26.2 (3.0) Lower extremity function (SPPB) 9.21 (2.1) 9.10 (2.2)† Note: MMSE = Mini-Mental State Examination; SPPB = Short physical performance battery. †n =106. View Large Figure 1 shows the unstandardized coefficients of cross-lagged model with 2 year follow-up for EF and life-space mobility. At baseline, better EF was associated with higher life-space mobility. Both EF and life-space mobility showed relatively strong stability between baseline and follow-up assessments. After controlling for age, gender, and taking into account previous measurements of EF and life-space mobility, the analysis revealed that better EF at baseline predicted higher life-space mobility at follow-up (path coefficient = 3.81, 95% confidential interval; 0.84, 6.78, p = .012), whereas baseline life-space mobility was not associated with EF at follow-up (Figure 1). The cross-lagged model fitted the data well Comparative Fit Index was 1.000, Tucker Lewis Index was 1.000, and root mean square error approximation less than 0.0005. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Unstandardized coefficients (95% confidence intervals) of cross-lagged model with 2 year follow-up for EF and life-space mobility adjusted for age and gender (n = 108). Path coefficients are statistically significant if zero is not included in the confidential intervals. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Unstandardized coefficients (95% confidence intervals) of cross-lagged model with 2 year follow-up for EF and life-space mobility adjusted for age and gender (n = 108). Path coefficients are statistically significant if zero is not included in the confidential intervals. Compared with those who did not participate in the follow-up study (n = 61), those who participated (n = 108) were younger (82.2 years, SD 4.1 vs. 83.6 years, SD 4.3, p = .038), and they had higher SPPB (9.3, SD 2.0 vs. 7.2, SD 3.4, p < .001), MMSE (26.3, SD 2.7 vs. 25.4, SD 2.5, p = .033), and life-space mobility scores (63.1, SD 19.7 vs. 51.2, SD 20.4, p < .001) at baseline. The proportion of those who dropped out was highest among those with poor EF (53.7%), followed by those with intermediate (30.0%) or good (18.9%) EF. Those with poor EF at baseline were five times (OR = 4.99, 95% CI 2.09, 11.92), and those with intermediate EF almost two times (OR =1.84, 95% CI 0.74, 4.61) more likely to drop out from the follow-up compared with those with good EF. Finally, we conducted additional cross-lagged modeling; first, to examine a stricter cut-point for good TMT, second, to analyze MMSE as an indicator of global cognition, and third, using δ-TMT as a continuous variable. Using more strict cut-points suggested by an earlier study (good δ-TMT performance < 60 seconds) (30) to define good EF (at baseline cut-point for good EF was ≤60 seconds and at follow-up ≤72 seconds) did not change the results. The analysis for MMSE and life-space mobility revealed similar associations as with using EF; coefficients and 95% confidential intervals for baseline MMSE predicting follow-up life-space was 1.22 (0.29, 2.15) and baseline life-space mobility predicting follow-up MMSE 0.01(−0.01, 0.03). The associations for EF as a continuous variable and life-space mobility among those who completed both parts of the TMT test (n = 78) were not statistically significant in either of the directions. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, we were the first to examine the temporal association between EF and life-space mobility among community-dwelling older people. Better EF at baseline predicted higher life-space mobility at follow-up, whereas baseline life-space mobility did not predict EF at follow-up. Thus, our findings suggest that impaired EF is a precedent for restricted life-space mobility rather than restriction of life-space would further influence cognitive decline. It is obvious in the light of previous studies that cognition is interrelated with mobility (7). In addition to emerging literature on the associations between cognitive function and mobility, we were using specific higher-order cognitive domain, EF, and a multidimensional mobility measure, life-space mobility, as measurements. Life-space mobility reflects person’s actual mobility through a given area over a specific time period and incorporates not only physical aspects of mobility but also psychosocial capability for participation in society (1). Furthermore, we examined which one of these measurements, EF or life-space mobility, is a stronger predictor for one another, whereas previous studies have predicted associations only for one of the possible directions (9,10). This was done by using analysis that enables simultaneous examination of longitudinal influences of one factor on the other and vice versa, while controlling for contemporary associations between factors, and the stability of each factor over time. The association between EF and mobility has been reported being bidirectional (8,31). However, our results are in line with some of the previous studies suggesting that EF is a predictor for mobility decline (12–14) and conflicting the previous results that suggest that life-space mobility predicts changes in cognitive functioning (3,9,10). The latter might be explained by the fact that neither of the studies had EF as a measure of cognitive functioning. After all, a person might have some deficit of EF, despite evident cognitive impairment (12). According to the environmental complexity theory, a more demanding environment requires more cognitive investment leading to increase in cognitive activity consequently resulting in better cognitive functioning (2). However, our results suggest that higher-order cognitive functioning such as executive functioning is a prerequisite for the capability to move further away from home and enabling to widen one’s life-space. Life-space mobility is a mobility measure that takes into account all movement in its’ different forms through one’s environment. The life-space mobility reaching only to one’s close neighborhood may require less cognitive investment than if an individual would be orienteering oneself further away from a familiar environment, and perhaps using a vehicle for transportation. Reduction in life-space mobility may reflect early changes in cognitive functioning. Impairment in EF may affect an individual’s willingness to travel further away from home even before any other markers of cognitive decline have appeared. Restricted life-space mobility may be seen as an early sign of cognitive decline resulting from EF impairment. In recent years, the understanding of the role of the brain in age-related declines in mobility has increased (32,33). Furthermore, EF has been identified as one of the potential mediators between age-related cognitive decline and functional ability (34). Cognitive processes such as attention, action-inhibition, and task-switching are dependent on EF and needed for motor control (35). These control processes are primarily supported by frontal areas of the brain that are most vulnerable in the aging process (35), which might potentially explain the causal relationship between EF and life-space mobility. Decline in life-space mobility has been found to be associated with decline in quality of life (36) and development of ADL disability (37). Our earlier study suggested that poor EF may predict a steeper decline in life-space mobility but the results did not quite reach statistical significant; hence, the causal association between EF and life-space mobility stayed unclear (6). However, the result of this study confirms our earlier suggestions of EF being a predictor of life-space mobility. Furthermore, poorer lower extremity functioning and difficulties in use of transportation partly explained the association between poor EF and lower life-space mobility (6). Thus, we did not adjust for SPPB as it being potential mediator between EF and life-space mobility (6). Future studies should examine if promoting EF by means of cognitive training interventions could possibly delay mobility limitations that further diminish life-space mobility. Our study had several strengths. By using life-space mobility and EF as measurements in this study, we were able to further existing literature relative to association between cognitive functioning and mobility. Furthermore, we were able to include considerable old people (range 78–93 years at follow-up) from all social strata into this study, and the participant did not have severe cognitive decline at baseline (mean MMSE 26.3, SD 2.7, and 12% < 23). In addition, we used computer-assisted face-to-face interviews by trained interviewers at participants’ homes, which probably improve the quality of data. Furthermore, we conducted several further modeling to test our results. Using more strict cut-points for good EF showed that the results were not dependent on the intermediate-good cut-point. The results of the cross-lagged model using MMSE instead of EF as the cognitive measure revealed similar associations. We found no statistically significant associations in either of directions when using EF measure as a continuous variable in cross-lagged modeling. This suggests that the cross-lagged association between baseline EF and follow-up life-space mobility observed in the larger sample where all the participants were included was driven by the poor values. This also supports our finding that the null life space mobility—EF association was not due to the scale properties of the categorized EF variable but rather due to the absence of a causal relationship. We are aware that the limited sample size in these sensitivity analyses decreases power even further; however, the coefficient is so low that it may not be considered material. Our study had some limitations. First of all, due to the fact that the participants with poorer functioning were more likely to drop out from the follow-up study, the results can be generalized only to somewhat better functioning community-dwelling older adults, and it is probably that the strength of the associations over time may be underestimated. Second, we had only a 2 year follow-up. Although this is a significant time period among older people to experience noticeable changes in functional capability, a longer follow-up period might reveal stronger effects. Third, we were using a single test to measure EF instead of multiple tests due to time constraints in the study protocol considering that the participants were very old. Although TMT is a widely used test and simple and easy to perform, further studies should use several test batteries for a more comprehensive evaluation of EF. Conclusions According to our knowledge, we were the first to explore the temporal association between EF and life-space mobility among community-dwelling older people. The results of the study suggest that better EF is a precedent for higher life-space mobility laying ground to future studies on the topic using larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods with multiple follow-up points. Supporting EF may help maintain higher life-space mobility enhancing independency and quality of life in old age. Funding This study was supported by the Academy of Finland (the Future of Living and Housing Program ASU-LIVE; grant number 255403 [to TR], number 263729 [to AV]; number 285747 [to MR]; numbers 129369, 129907, 135072, 129255, and 126775 [to JGE], and number 257239 [to MBvB]; Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture [to TR, MR, and EP]. TP-C was supported by Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation and Juho Vainio Foundation. Conflict of Interest Statement None declared. References 1. Baker PS , Bodner EV , Allman RM . Measuring life-space mobility in community-dwelling older adults . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2003 ; 51 : 1610 – 1614 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 2. Schooler C . Psychological effects of complex environments during the life span: a review and theory . Intelligence . 1984 ; 8 : 259 – 281 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 3. Crowe M , Andel R , Wadley VG , Okonkwo OC , Sawyer P , Allman RM . Life-space and cognitive decline in a community-based sample of African American and Caucasian older adults . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2008 ; 63 : 1241 – 1245 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 4. Sartori AC , Wadley VG , Clay OJ , Parisi JM , Rebok GW , Crowe M . The relationship between cognitive function and life space: the potential role of personal control beliefs . Psychol Aging . 2012 ; 27 : 364 – 374 . doi: 10.1037/a0025212 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 5. Banich MT . Executive function the search for an integrated account . Curr Dir Psychol Sci . 2009 ; 18 : 89 – 94 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 6. Poranen-Clark T , von Bonsdorff MB , Rantakokko M et al. Executive function and life-space mobility in old age . Aging Clin Exp Res . 2017 : 1 – 7 . doi:10.1007/s40520-017-0762-3 [Epub ahead of print] 7. Demnitz N , Esser P , Dawes H et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies examining the relationship between mobility and cognition in healthy older adults . Gait Posture . 2016 ; 50 : 164 – 174 . doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.08.028 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 8. Stijntjes M , Aartsen MJ , Taekema DG et al. Temporal relationship between cognitive and physical performance in middle-aged to oldest old people . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2017 ; 72 : 662 – 668 . doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw133 . Google Scholar PubMed 9. Silberschmidt S , Kumar A , Raji MM , Markides K , Ottenbacher KJ , Al Snih S . Life-space mobility and cognitive decline among Mexican Americans aged 75 years and older . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2017 ; 65 : 1514 – 1520 . doi: 10.1111/jgs.14829 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 10. James BD , Boyle PA , Buchman AS , Barnes LL , Bennett DA . Life space and risk of Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline in old age . Am J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2011 ; 19 : 961 – 969 . doi: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e318211c219 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 11. Royall DR , Palmer R , Chiodo LK , Polk MJ . Declining executive control in normal aging predicts change in functional status: the Freedom House Study . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2004 ; 52 : 346 – 352 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 12. Johnson JK , Lui LY , Yaffe K . Executive function, more than global cognition, predicts functional decline and mortality in elderly women . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2007 ; 62 : 1134 – 1141 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 13. Gross AL , Xue QL , Bandeen-Roche K et al. Declines and impairment in executive function predict onset of physical frailty . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2016 ; 71 : 1624 – 1630 . doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw067 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 14. Vazzana R , Bandinelli S , Lauretani F et al. Trail Making Test predicts physical impairment and mortality in older persons . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2010 ; 58 : 719 – 723 . doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02780.x . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 15. Portegijs E , Rantakokko M , Mikkola TM , Viljanen A , Rantanen T . Association between physical performance and sense of autonomy in outdoor activities and life-space mobility in community-dwelling older people . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2014 ; 62 : 615 – 621 . doi: 10.1111/jgs.12763 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 16. Caetano MJD , Menant JC , Schoene D , Pelicioni PH , Sturnieks DL , Lord SR . Sensorimotor and cognitive predictors of impaired gait adaptability in older people . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2016 ;72:1257–1263. doi:10.1093/gerona/ glw171 17. Rantanen T , Portegijs E , Viljanen A et al. Individual and environmental factors underlying life space of older people - study protocol and design of a cohort study on life-space mobility in old age (LISPE) . BMC Public Health . 2012 ; 12 : 1018 . doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1018 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 18. Polku H , Mikkola TM , Rantakokko M et al. Hearing and quality of life among community-dwelling older adults . J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci . 2016 . doi: gbw045 [pii]. 19. Reitan R , Wolfson D. The Halstead-Reitan Neutopsychologic Test Battery: Theory and Clinical Interpretation . 2nd ed. Tucson, AZ : Neuropsychology Press ; 1993 . 20. Strauss E , Sherman E , Spreen O. A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests. Administration, Norms, and Commentary . 3rd ed. New York, NY : Oxford University Press ; 2006 . 21. Lezak M. Neuropsychological Assessment . 3rd ed . Oxford : Oxford University Press ; 1995 . 22. Bowie CR , Harvey PD . Administration and interpretation of the Trail Making Test . Nat Protoc . 2006 ; 1 : 2277 – 2281 . doi: 10.1038/nprot.2006.390 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 23. Lezak MD. Neuropsychological Assessment . 3rd ed. USA : Oxford University Press ; 2004 . 24. Ble A , Volpato S , Zuliani G et al. Executive function correlates with walking speed in older persons: the InCHIANTI study . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2005 ; 53 : 410 – 415 . doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53157.x . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 25. Drane DL , Yuspeh RL , Huthwaite JS , Klingler LK . Demographic characteristics and normative observations for derived-trail making test indices . Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol . 2002 ; 15 : 39 – 43 . Google Scholar PubMed 26. Portegijs E , Iwarsson S , Rantakokko M , Viljanen A , Rantanen T . Life-space mobility assessment in older people in Finland; measurement properties in winter and spring . BMC Res Notes . 2014 ; 7 : 323 . doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-323 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 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 : 189 – 198 . doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 28. Guralnik JM , Simonsick EM , Ferrucci L et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission . J Gerontol . 1994 ; 49 : M85 – M94 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 29. Guralnik JM , Ferrucci L , Simonsick EM , Salive ME , Wallace RB . Lower-extremity function in persons over the age of 70 years as a predictor of subsequent disability . N Engl J Med . 1995 ; 332 : 556 – 561 . doi: 10.1056/NEJM199503023320902 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 30. Papandonatos GD , Ott BR , Davis JD , Barco PP , Carr DB . Clinical utility of the Trail Making Test as a predictor of driving performance in older adults . J Am Geriatr Soc . 2015 ; 63 : 2358 – 2364 . doi: 10.1111/jgs.13776 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 31. Tian Q , An Y , Resnick SM , Studenski S . The relative temporal sequence of decline in mobility and cognition among initially unimpaired older adults: Results from the baltimore longitudinal study of aging . Age Ageing . 2016 . doi: afw185 [pii]. 32. Holtzer R , Epstein N , Mahoney JR , Izzetoglu M , Blumen HM . Neuroimaging of mobility in aging: a targeted review . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2014 ; 69 : 1375 – 1388 . doi: 10.1093/gerona/glu052 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 33. Rosso AL , Studenski SA , Chen WG et al. Aging, the central nervous system, and mobility . J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci . 2013 ; 68 : 1379 – 1386 . doi: 10.1093/gerona/glt089 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 34. Puente AN , Lindbergh CA , Miller LS . The relationship between cognitive reserve and functional ability is mediated by executive functioning in older adults . Clin Neuropsychol . 2015 ; 29 : 67 – 81 . doi: 10.1080/13854046. 2015.1005676 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 35. Ren J , Wu YD , Chan JS , Yan JH . Cognitive aging affects motor performance and learning . Geriatr Gerontol Int . 2013 ; 13 : 19 – 27 . doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0594.2012.00914.x . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 36. Rantakokko M , Portegijs E , Viljanen A , Iwarsson S , Kauppinen M , Rantanen T . Changes in life-space mobility and quality of life among community-dwelling older people: A 2-year follow-up study . Quality of Life Research . 2015 : 1 – 9 . 37. Portegijs E , Rantakokko M , Viljanen A , Sipilä S , Rantanen T . Identification of older people at risk of ADL disability using the life-space assessment: a longitudinal cohort study . J Am Med Dir Assoc . 2016 ; 17 : 410 – 414 . doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.12.010 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical SciencesOxford University Press

Published: Nov 1, 2017

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off