Skip Navigation


Age and Ageing Advance Access originally published online on May 11, 2006
Age and Ageing 2006 35(4):422-427; doi:10.1093/ageing/afl025
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/4/422    most recent
afl025v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Voelcker-Rehage, C.
Right arrow Articles by Willimczik, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Voelcker-Rehage, C.
Right arrow Articles by Willimczik, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Motor plasticity in a juggling task in older adults—a developmental study

Claudia Voelcker-Rehage1,2 and Klaus Willimczik2

1 Jacobs Center for Lifelong Learning and Institutional Development, International University, Bremen, Germany
2 Department of Movement Science, University Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany

Address correspondence to: C. Voelcker-Rehage. Fax: ++49(421) 200 494761. Email: c.voelcker-rehage{at}iu-bremen.de

Received 29 July 2005; accepted in revised form 21 March 2006


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Method
 Results
 Discussion
 Key points
 Source of research funding
 Conflict of interest declaration
 References
 
Objective: to examine the plasticity of motor performance in old age. Older adults were instructed and trained in a juggling task and their performances were compared, first, within the group of older adults and, second, with the performances of children, youths and younger adults.

Subjects: older adults, children, youths and younger adults (n = 1,206, range 6–89 years).

Methods: participants were asked to learn a juggling task. Performance was tested before semantic instruction (pre-test 1), after semantic instruction (pre-test 2) and after 6 days of juggling practice (post-test). None of the participants had prior experiences in juggling. Results were analysed using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results: older adults showed a clear improvement in juggling performance after instruction and after six training sessions. On average, they reached performances comparable with those of children aged between 10 and 14 years, and with those of younger adults aged between 30 and 59 years. Only youths and younger adults aged between 15 and 29 years showed significantly higher performances at baseline, after instruction and after training.

Conclusions: older adults exhibit high reserve capacity, that is, a potential for learning ‘new’ motor skills.

Keywords: ageing, human development, practice, learning, motor skills, elderly


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Method
 Results
 Discussion
 Key points
 Source of research funding
 Conflict of interest declaration
 References
 
Physical function is central to most of our activities. Our physical efficiency permeates all aspects of our life, and it becomes a constraining factor in what we can do, and in turn it can define our quality of life. There is broad evidence that a physically active lifestyle is associated with improvements in functional abilities and health status and that it may prevent certain diseases or diminish their severity [1, 2]. Consequently, the World Health Organization defines active ageing as one important factor to optimise health and to enhance quality of life, and it promotes physically active lifestyles in older adults [3, 4].

Previous research has shown the age-related impairments of and the benefits of physical activity on motor functions [5, 6]. Many of these articles on healthy older adults focus on muscle strength, endurance and balance [7–9]. Thus, effects of strength, endurance and balance training on healthy older adults are well documented [7, 10–14]. Results indicate that much of the reduction in motor performance and physical fitness and the low functional level associated with ageing may be due to inappropriate (sedentary) lifestyle leading to loss of muscle strength, endurance and balance rather than to ageing itself.

The effects of age-related decrements in performance levels, practice gains and ‘new’ learning are also well known for a variety of working skills and fine motor tasks [15–17]. However, only few studies investigated the learning performance of gross motor skills in older age [18–21]. As of yet, there are no precise assumptions to how advanced the trainability of gross motor skills is related to advancing age and whether it is a changing function over the entire lifespan. Because of the lack of research on motor plasticity of gross motor skills in older adults, the objective of the present study was to investigate the amount of motor plasticity in older adults (over 60 years of age).

With respect to cognitive ageing research on plasticity [22–24], we investigated the learning gains due to instructions and practice. Specifically, we investigated motor plasticity in motor skill learning using a juggling task. Typically, people have no earlier experiences in juggling. Thus, the emphasis of this study was on ‘new’ learning and not on maintenance or improvement of motor skills acquired in the past. Our first interest was in the development of juggling performance within the group of older adults at three times of the learning process. Following previous cognitive research [23, 24], we investigated the extent to which the performance before semantic instruction (pre-test 1), after semantic instruction (pre-test 2) and the potential to further refine a complex motor task by training (post-test) is preserved in older adults. In line with previous motor and cognitive research, we assumed that older adults would show a sizable level of juggling performance following training. Furthermore, we expected age-related differences in performance level within the group of older adults. Gender effects were not expected. Our second objective was to compare the older adults’ performances with the performances of children, youths and younger adults. This comparison seems to be necessary to obtain an estimate of the size of age-related reductions in plasticity. As compared to younger adults and youths, older adults’ performance and motor plasticity would be assumed to be lower.


   Method
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Method
Results
 Discussion
 Key points
 Source of research funding
 Conflict of interest declaration
 References
 
Subjects
The motor plasticity study in older adults was part of a large multivariate study on lifespan differences in motor performance (MODALIS) [25]. The original sample size of the study was n = 1,206, including ages from 6 to 89 years (602 men and 604 women). Two hundred and seventy-eight adults were between ages 60 and 89 years. All adults participated voluntarily in the study; they were solicited through advertisements and during their stay in a health centre. Participants provided informed consent to the procedures of the study approved by the University of Bielefeld, Germany, Review Board and participated without pay. Participants had medical clearance and were screened for health restrictions before recruiting by a trained interviewer. Participants were excluded from the study if they had a history of cardiovascular diseases or any motor or cognitive restriction. The children and youths were examined at school (elementary and high school) during their regular physical education lessons by trained experimenters. Children’s parents were informed about the study and confirmed study participation for their children. No child had to be excluded due to cognitive or motor learning disabilities.

All participants were given a demographic and health questionnaire, supplemented by personal interviews, and a battery of motor tests. A standard cognitive test was not used. Expected age-related decrements in advancing age were shown for the motor ability status (e.g. balance, reaction time) but not for the physical activity level (cf. Table 1). Participants who were absent for more than one test day or training session and participants who had earlier experience or training in juggling were excluded. The remaining group consisted of 917 participants. For data analysis, participants were divided into age groups in 5-year intervals (cf. Table 1). Owing to the low sample size, participants between 80 and 89 years were classified as the group 80+ (n = 14) and were excluded from statistical analysis.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1.. Sample size (n), separated for females (F) and males (M) physical activity level and results of motor ability tests

 

Task, procedure, test sessions and training

Task
Participants were asked to learn two kinds of juggling: first, juggling with three scarves (50 x 50 cm for adults, 40 x 40 cm for children) and, after that, juggling with three balls (diameter of 6.5 cm and weight of 120 g for adults, diameter of 5 cm and weight of 80 g for children). The selection of the juggling skill was based on detailed criteria and preliminary investigations. For example, the motor skill needed to be (i) capable of being learned across the lifespan and within a reasonably short period of time; (ii) novel, that is, no previous experience was required to complete the exercise; (iii) largely independent of physical abilities (endurance, strength and flexibility) and highly motivating. In pilot studies, analysis had shown that the motor skill juggling was particularly suitable, met all criteria mentioned above and was characterised by high reliability (Cronbachs Alpha ranged between {alpha} = 0.94 at pre-test 1 and {alpha} = 0.97 at post-test).


Procedure and test sessions
The training programme comprised a total of eight sessions. At the first session (pre-tests 1 and 2) juggling performance was assessed (Monday). Baseline performance (pre-test 1) was assessed by demonstrating the task to the participants (five cascades), but none of the participants got a precise description of the skill to be learned at this stage. Between pre-tests 1 and 2, participants were semantically instructed in juggling by demonstrating the motor skill and by pointing out characteristics of movements, but without any physical practice. The next six sessions (sessions 2–7) were practice sessions (Tuesday to Friday and following Monday to Tuesday) in which participants systematically learned and practiced the juggling task. Practice effects were assessed at session 8 (post-test) (Wednesday). At each test session in pre- and post-test, participants were given five test trials.

A video camera was used to record the juggling performance of the participants. Two trained experimenters analysed the juggling performance independently by watching the slow motion videotapes. The experimenters were blinded to the age of the participants as far as possible. They used a detailed quantitative scale to score the juggling performance with scarves and balls. Scoring differences were decided after discussion. Every thrown and caught scarf and ball was counted. The maximum range for juggling with scarves was five cascades (45 points); the maximum range for ball juggling was 10 cascades (90 points), with a cascade consisting of a complete circle of the three objects (9 points). For data analysis, the means of the best three of five trials of juggling with scarves and juggling with balls were summed overall.


Training
In the six training sessions (15 min each), first, each participant learned juggling with scarves (five cascades without an error), then he or she was allowed to start with the ball-juggling task. For both skills, we used the same 17-step course of instructions [26]. The course of instruction started with juggling of one scarf (e.g. ‘Throw one scarf with your right hand and catch it with your left hand.’) and continuously increased difficulty up to three scarves. Participants were asked to practice each step five times without an error. After a participant had completed the 17-step course of instruction with scarves, he or she started the same course again with balls. Thus, training was individualised with regard to the learning achievements of each participant and standardised over the time (6 x 15 min), the instructions and the issues.

Statistical analysis
To investigate the effects of training, age and gender within the sample of the older adults (60–79 years), a repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) was computed with test session (pre-test 1, pre-test 2 and post-test) as the within-subject variable and with age group (60–64, 65–69, 70–74 and 75–79 years) and gender as the between-subject variables. Greenhouse Geyser adjustment is reported when the sphericity assumption was violated. Post hoc contrasts (Bonferroni adjustment) were used to determine effects within the age groups and to determine differences between the times of assessment.

In a next step, the juggling performances of the older adults were compared with the results of children, youths and younger adults using a 3 (time of assessment) x 12 (age groups) mixed factor ANOVA with repeated measures on the first factor and corresponding post hoc tests. Owing to the unequal group sizes (cf. Table 1) and a violation of homogeneity, a stringent alpha level was used ({alpha} = 0.01) [27]. Due to the low number of men and women, respectively, within the age group 25–29 and 30–34 years, gender effects across the lifespan were not analysed.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Method
 Results
Discussion
 Key points
 Source of research funding
 Conflict of interest declaration
 References
 
Effects of instruction and practice in older adults
The juggling performances across the lifespan are given in Figure 1. The right side of the figure is separated by a dashed line and marks the results of older adults (60–80+ years) (cf. also Table 2 for M and SD and results separated by gender). ANOVA for the groups of older adults (60–64, 65–69, 70–74, 75–79 years) revealed a significant difference between the time of assessment [F (1.83, 343.17) = 1,440.33, P<0.01, {eta}2 = 0.89] but no significant effect of age [F (3, 188) = 0.19, P = 0.91] and gender [F (1, 188) = 2.50, P = 0.12] and no significant time x age interaction [F (5.48, 343.17) = 1.20, P = 0.31]. Younger old adults did not perform on a significantly higher level as compared with older old adults. Time by gender interaction, however, was significant [F (1.83, 343.17) = 5.62, P<0.01, {eta}2 = 0.03]. Whereas men show higher performance improvements from pre-test 1 to pre-test 2, women improved their performance from pre-test 2 to post-test to a higher degree (cf. Table 2). Time of assessment by age by gender interaction was not significant [F (5.48, 343.17) =1.84, P = 0.10].


Figure 1
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1.. Juggling performance across the lifespan [raw data points (M) and polynomial trend lines]. Results are shown for baseline performance (pre-test 1), performance after semantic instruction (pre-test 2) and performance after six practice sessions (post-test).

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2.. Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of juggling pre-test 1, pre-test 2, and post-test performance for older adults

 

As expected, post hoc contrasts confirmed that performance after instruction (pre-test 2) was significantly higher than performance at baseline (pre-test 1) and that performance after practice (post-test) was significantly higher than performance after instruction (pre-test 2) (always P<0.01). On average, older adults between 60 and 79 years learned to juggle five cascades with scarves plus one cascade ball-juggling (cf. Figure 1). As shown in Figure 1, only the very old adults (80+ years) experienced—descriptively—clear diminished juggling performance.

Four participants (all in age group 70–74 years) did not learn to juggle with three scarves. Their performances ranged between less than one cascade (n = 3) and less than three cascades (n = 1). Consequently, Table 2 indicates the high variability within this age group. Also in the age group 80+, two participants reached less than one cascade scarf juggling. However, nearly 80% of the participants learned to juggle with scarves plus first trials in ball juggling (cf. Table 2 for M and SD). They reached performance levels comparable with the mean performance levels of the other age groups (60–64 to 75–79 years) of older adults.

Comparison of older and younger participants
Owing to the lack of age effects for older adults, the four age groups of older adults were classified into one group (60–79 years). The 3 x 12 mixed factor ANOVA showed a significant effect of time of assessment [F (1.55, 1,384.39) = 1,643.46, P<0.01, {eta}2 = 0.65], a significant age effect [F (11,894) = 56.84, P<0.01, {eta}2 = 0.41] and a significant time by age interaction [F (17.03, 1,384.39) = 17.75, P<0.01, {eta}2 = 0.18]. Juggling performance increased significantly with instruction and training, whereby the shape of the learning function was different across the age groups. Post hoc contrasts indicated that older adults (60–79 years) performed significantly higher than the age group 5–9 years and significantly lower than 15- to 29-year-old youths and younger adults (always P<0.01).

The computation of post hoc contrasts separated by test session indicated significantly higher performances of older adults as compared with 5- to 9-year-old children for pre-test 2 and post-test performance (P<0.01) but not for pre-test 1 performance. Furthermore, older adults’ baseline performance, performance after the short instruction phase and performance after six training sessions were significantly lower as compared with the ages of 15–29 years (pre-tests 1 and 2) and 15–24 years (post-test), respectively (always P<0.01). Older adults’ performances were comparable with the performances of 10- to 14-year-old children and adults between 25–30 and 59 years.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Method
 Results
 Discussion
Key points
 Source of research funding
 Conflict of interest declaration
 References
 
The purpose of this study was, first, to describe motor plasticity for ‘new learning’ of a complex motor skill in older adults and, second, to compare older adults’ performances with the motor plasticity of younger adults, children and youths. The main findings of this study are as follows: (i) older adults show a high potential to acquire and further refine the complex motor task juggling; (ii) no statistically significant decrease in motor plasticity between the ages of 60 and 79 years can be observed and (iii) older adults’ performance is comparable with the performance of children in the age group 10–14 years and of adults between 25–30 and 59 years. Only youths and young adults (between 15 and 24–29 years) perform on a higher level and show a peak in performance (cf. Figure 1).

Older adults produce large improvements in juggling performance—with certain limitations beginning at the age of 70 years—and demonstrate a substantial motor plasticity for new motor skills. Particularly, the benefits for motor skill learning accrue after a relatively short period of time, namely after six 15 min practice sessions. This is valid for women and men.

The current results are in line with other motor studies that have shown learning and improving sport motor skills in older age is still possible [19, 20]. Several cognitive studies, however, have shown that younger adults benefit more from the training programmes than older adults (i.e. memory training) [23, 24, 28]. These results are interpreted as a substantial age-related reduction in cognitive plasticity. Our results might indicate that older adults are able to activate reserve capacities, compensate for motor and cognitive weakness and in turn show learning gains comparable to younger adults. However, although older adults show comparable performance gains, their absolute performances in pre-test 1, pre-test 2 and post-test are on a lower level than the performances of young adults between 15 and 29 years. Although all participants were naïve to the task in pre-test, younger adults were much quicker to pick up the task in pre-tests 1 and 2 at once just by observation and explanation, respectively, resulting in higher pre-test performance levels.

One might assume that the high physical activity level of the older adults might positively influence their motor plasticity. We did not find, however, a significant correlation between the physical activity level and performance in juggling task (always P>0.05).

The lifespan perspective makes it possible to obtain an estimate of the size of age-related reductions in plasticity, and it underlines the high amount of motor plasticity in older age. A typical comparison of younger (mostly students) versus older adults—as done in most cognitive and motor studies [e.g. 23]—would have underestimated the performances of the older adults. Our results indicate that the reduction in motor plasticity occurred not particularly in older age but more in young and middle age (after a peak in youth and younger adulthood).

This study has several limitations. At this point of research, we are not able to make statements regarding motor skill learning in general and its development across the lifespan, because skill acquisition is highly specific and in addition there might generally be little or no transfer of training from one motor skill to another [29]. The high plasticity in motor skill learning of juggling is one example for ‘successful ageing’, however. The results suggest that older adults are still able to react to changing circumstances and to handle new situations with the development of new behavioural patterns. Further studies that examine motor performance and motor learning in tasks, that show a stronger connection to activities of daily living, are required and will provide broader insight into the potentials of older adults. Second, we did not integrate a retention task. Thus, we do not know if older adults lose the performance gains (in the less automatised aspects of the juggling tasks) more quickly than middle-aged and young adults, as shown in other studies for perceptual [30] and non-perceptual motor skills [31]. Third, the present results describe the development of motor plasticity of a gross motor skill that relies on eye–hand coordination across the lifespan. Our data do not allow us to make causal explanations. Additional work is needed that focuses on the reasons for age-related differences, for example, on how neurophysiological changes affect motor skill learning performance.


   Key points
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Method
 Results
 Discussion
 Key points
Source of research funding
 Conflict of interest declaration
 References
 

  • Instruction and practice in a juggling task lead to considerable performance improvements in healthy older adults.
  • Older adults do not benefit significantly less from the training programme than older children (10–14 years) and younger adults (30–59 years).
  • Only youth and younger adults between 15 and 29 years perform on a clearly higher level as compared with older adults.
  • Normal ageing is not necessarily associated with a strong reduction or even a complete loss of the ability to acquire and improve a motor skill (motor plasticity).


   Source of research funding
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Method
 Results
 Discussion
 Key points
 Source of research funding
Conflict of interest declaration
 References
 
DFG Grant WI 685/3


   Conflict of interest declaration
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Method
 Results
 Discussion
 Key points
 Source of research funding
 Conflict of interest declaration
References
 
There are no conflicts of interests.


   Acknowledgements
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Method
 Results
 Discussion
 Key points
 Source of research funding
 Conflict of interest declaration
 References
 
Special thanks go to our collaborator Olaf Wiertz; to Peter Fleig for his assistance in data analysis; to Friederike Forster, Ansgar Krümpelbeck, Tanja Siepe, Nina Thöne and all the other student assistants for their assistance in data collection; to Arthur Steinmann for technical assistance; and to all our study participants for their participation in this study.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Method
 Results
 Discussion
 Key points
 Source of research funding
 Conflict of interest declaration
 References
 

  1. Singh MAF. Exercise comes of age: rationale and recommendations for a geriatric exercise prescription. J Gerontol a Biol Sci Med Sci 2002; 57A: M262–M82.[Free Full Text]
  2. Elward K, Larson EB. Benefits of exercise for older adults—A review of existing evidence and current recommendations for the general population. Clin Geriatr Med 1992; 8: 35–50.[Medline]
  3. WHO. The Heidelberg Guidelines for Promoting Physical Activity Among Older Persons. Ageing and Health Programme. Division of Health Promotion, Education and Communication. 1996. http://www.who.int/hpr/ageing/heidelberg_eng.pdf.
  4. WHO. Active Ageing. A policy framework. World health organization. 2002. http://www.who.int/hpr/ageing/ActiveAgeingPolicyFrame.pdf.
  5. van Heuvelen MJ, Kempen GIJM, Brouwer WH, De Greef MHG. Physical fitness related to disability in older persons. Gerontology 2000; 46: 333–41.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  6. Lakatta EG. Age-associated cardiovascular changes in health: impact on cardiovascular disease in older persons. Heart Fail Rev 2002; 7: 29–49.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Cavani V, Mier CM, Musto AA, Tummers N. Effects of a 6-week resistance-training program on functional fitness of older adults. J Aging Phys Act 2002; 10: 443–52.
  8. Wolf SL, Barnhart HX, Ellison GL, Coogler CE. The effect of Tai Chi quan and computerized balance training on postural stability in older subjects. Phys Ther 1997; 77: 371–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Conzelmann A. Entwicklung konditioneller Fähigkeiten im Erwachsenenalter [The development of physical abilities in adulthood]. Schorndorf, Germany: Hofmann, 1997.
  10. Fiatarone MA, Marks EC, Ryan ND, Meredith CN, Lipsity LA, Evans WJ. High-intensity strength training in nonagenarians. Effects on skeletal muscle. JAMA 1990; 263: 3029–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Hurley BF, Hagberg JM. Optimizing health in older persons: aerobic or strength training? Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1998; 26: 61–89.[Web of Science][Medline]
  12. Ledin T, Kronhed AC, Möller C, Möller M, Ödkvist LM, Olsson B. Effects of balance training in elderly evaluated by clinical tests and dynamic posturography. J Vestib Res 1990–91; 1: 129–38.
  13. Pollock ML, Lowenthal DT, Graves JE, Carroll JF. The elderly and endurance training. In: Shephard RJ, Astrand PO, eds. Endurance in Sport. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1992, 390–406.
  14. Lemura LM, von Duvillard SP, Mookerjee S. The effects of physical training of functional capacity in adults. Ages 46–90: a meta-analysis. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2000; 40: 1–10.[Web of Science][Medline]
  15. Sparrow WA, Parker S, Lay B, Wengier M. Aging effects on the metabolic and cognitive energy cost of interlimb coordination. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2005; 60A: 312–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Wishart LR, Lee TD, Cunningham SJ, Murdoch JE. Age-related differences and the role of augmented visual feedback in learning a bimanual coordination pattern. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2002; 110: 247–63.
  17. Spirduso WW. Physical dimensions of aging. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.
  18. Baumann H. Lehren und Lernen im Seniorensport [Teaching and learning in exercise for older adults]. In: Baumann H, ed. Älter Werden—Fit Bleiben (II). Germany: Universität Erlangen Nürnberg, 1990, 110–7.
  19. Kiphard EJ, Seel R, Carstensen R. Leistungs- und Belastungsfähigkeit im Alter [Performance and resilience in old age]. Prax Psychomotorik 1985; 10: 5–7.
  20. Kirchner G, Schaller HJ. Motorisches Lernen im Alter: Grundlagen und Anwendungsperspektiven [Motor learning in older adults: foundation and perspectives]. Aachen, Germany: Meyer & Meyer, 1996.
  21. Neumann O. Art, Maß und Methode Von Bewegung und Sport bei Älteren Menschen [Type, degree, and method of activity and sport for older adults], 2nd edition. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer, 1978.
  22. Baltes PB. Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: on the dynamics between growth and decline. Dev Psychol 1987; 23: 611–26.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  23. Kliegl R, Smith J, Baltes PB. Testing-the-limits and the study of adult age differences in cognitive plasticity of a mnemonic skill. Dev Psychol 1989; 25: 247–56.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  24. Kliegl R, Smith J, Baltes PB. On the locus and process of magnification of age differences during mnemonic training. Dev Psychol 1990; 26: 894–904.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  25. Willimczik K, Voelcker-Rehage C, Wiertz O. Sportmotorische Entwicklung über die Lebensspanne—Empirische Befunde zu einem theoretischen Konzept [Sport motor development across the lifespan—empirical results of a theoretical concept]. Z Sportpsychol 2006; 13: 10–221.[CrossRef]
  26. Voelcker-Rehage C, Wiertz O. Die Lernfähigkeit Sportmotorischer Fertigkeiten Im Lichte der Entwicklungspsychologie der Lebensspanne [Motor skill learning in focus of lifespan developmental psychology]. Germany: Universität Bielefeld, 2003.
  27. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.
  28. Verhaeghen P, Marcoen A. On the mechanism of plasticity in young and older adults after instruction in the method of loci: evidence for an amplification model. Psychol Aging 1996; 11: 164–78.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  29. Abernethy B, Hanrahan SJ, Kippers V, Mackinnon LT, Pandy MG. The Biophysical Foundations of Human Movement, 2nd edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinentics, 2005.
  30. Rodrigue KM, Kennedy KM, Raz N. Aging and longitudinal change in perceptual-motor skill acquisition in healthy adults. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2005; 60B: P174–P181.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Gilbert DK, Rogers WA, Samuelson ME. Long-term retention of a spatial mental model for younger and older adults. Exp Aging Res 2004; 30: 217–24.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  32. Zimmer R, Volkamer M. Mot 4–6. Motoriktest für vier- bis sechsjährige Kinder [A motor test battery for four to six year old children]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Test, 1987.
  33. Ehrler W, Huth M. Körperliche Leistungsfähigkeit 43-bis 45-Jähriger und 62- bis 64-Jähriger im Vergleich [A comparison of the motor performance of 43–45 and 62–64 year olds]. In: Martin P, Ettrich KU, Lehr U, Roether D, Fischer-Cyrulies A, eds. Aspekte der Entwicklung im mittleren und höheren Lebensalter. Darmstadt, Germany: Steinkopff, 2000, 220–34.
  34. Kiphard EJ, Schilling F. Körperkoordinationstest für Kinder KTK [Body coordination test for children]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Test, 1974.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/4/422    most recent
afl025v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Voelcker-Rehage, C.
Right arrow Articles by Willimczik, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Voelcker-Rehage, C.
Right arrow Articles by Willimczik, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?