Abstract
Purpose Treadmills (TM) are widely used for gait assessment in older adults (OA), yet their ecological validity across inclined terrain remains underexplored. This study compared spatiotemporal, physiological, and kinetic gait outcomes between TM and overground (OG) walking across flat, uphill, and downhill terrain in OA and younger adults (YA), and examined sensorimotor predictors of speed discrepancies.
Methods Twenty-six OA (70 ± 6 years; 22 women) and 24 YA (26 ± 5 years; 7 women), none with prior TM experience, completed matched TM and OG trials across three terrain conditions. Self-selected TM speed was determined using a bidirectional protocol. The modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction in Balance quantified sensorimotor profiles. Mixed-design ANCOVAs and multiple regression examined condition, inclination, and group effects with sex as a covariate.
Results TM speeds were consistently slower than OG across all conditions in both groups (Δ = −0.35 m/s, d = −1.67), with shorter stride length, lower cadence, and altered support phase timing; YA showed larger reductions and a greater shift toward double support than OA. Foot clearance at midswing was largely preserved across modalities. TM walking elicited higher heart rate and RPE despite slower speeds, most pronounced in OA uphill. Ground reaction forces and loading rates were substantially reduced on the TM. Sensorimotor profiles predicted the downhill speed discrepancy (R² = 0.49), with vestibular and somatosensory contributions as independent predictors alongside age group.
Conclusion TM-derived speed, spatiotemporal, and physiological measures are not interchangeable with real-world ambulation data in OA across inclined terrain.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics Committee: Auburn University Institutional Review Board, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA. Decision: Ethical approval was granted on November 9, 2024 (IRB ID: STUDY00000258; study title: "Influence of Footwear Features and Cognitive Demands on Walking in Adults"). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants using an IRB-approved consent form.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
