Skip to main content

Movement patterns during gait initiation in older adults with various stages of frailty: a biomechanical analysis



Gait initiation is challenging for older individuals with poor physical function, particularly for those with frailty. Frailty is a geriatric syndrome associated with increased risk of illness, falls, and functional decline. This study examines whether spatial and temporal parameters of gait initiation differ between groups of older adults with different levels of frailty, and whether fear of falling, and balance ability are correlated with the height of lifting the food during gait initiation.


Sixty-one individuals aged > 65 years, classified by Fried frailty phenotype, performed five self-paced gait initiation trials. Data was collected using a three-dimensional passive optical motion capture system, consisting of 10 cameras with the ability to perceive reflective markers, and two force plates. The total duration of gait initiation and the duration of its four sub-phases, the first step length, and the maximum foot clearance during the first step were derived, and compared statistically between groups. Additionally, an association analysis was conducted between foot clearance and fear of falling, and confidence in balance in older individuals.


Frail individuals had significantly longer unloading durations, and total durations of gait initiation compared to non-frail older adults. Additionally, they had shorter first step lengths compared to non-frail older adults. Pre-frail older adults also showed shorter steps compared to the non-frail group. However, there were no significant differences between groups for the maximum foot clearance during the first step. Nevertheless, the maximum foot clearance of older individuals correlated significantly with their fear of falling and confidence in balance.


Older adults with reduced physical function and signs of frailty mainly display longer duration of gait initiation and decreased first step length compared to non-frail older adults. The release phase is decreased as the double support phase is prolonged in frail patients. This information can guide the development of specialized exercise programs to improve mobility in this challenging motion between static and dynamic balance.


The population of older adults is increasing rapidly, both in numbers and as a share of the total. According to the World Population Prospects report published in 2022, the share of the global population at ages 65 and above is projected to rise from 10% in 2022 to 16% in 2050 [1]. This demographic change necessarily requires novel eldercare strategies that can efficiently cope with the growing burden of healthcare and medical costs [2]. One particular challenge is the healthcare of aging people with frailty. Frailty is characterized by decreased physiologic reserves and resistance, increased vulnerability to acute stressors, and an overall decline in functional capacity [3,4,5]. In most cases, it is related to aging, disability, and comorbidity - however, because of its complexity and multidimensionality, it is a difficult term to conceptualize [6]. Fried et al. [4] first developed a phenotype of frailty, which defines it as a clinical syndrome considering various symptoms and signs with a distinct focus on musculoskeletal function. Currently, this is the most frequently used approach for identifying affected patients in clinical practice and research settings [5, 7]. The Fried phenotype includes five criteria to determine if a person is frail or not: Exhaustion, self-reported unintentional weight loss, low physical activity, as well as objective measures of weak grip strength and slow gait speed. Individuals with three or more present criteria are considered as „frail“, those with one or two criteria as „pre-frail“, and those with no criteria of the above as „non-frail“. As frail older adults are particularly prone to falls, report particularly frequently on fear of falling, and frequently suffer from postural stability disorders and gait abnormalities [8,9,10], a detailed assessment of selected biomechanical parameters of gait could provide new insights as to how interventions might be designed to improve ambulatory capabilities in this vulnerable population.

Gait initiation (GI) is the transient phase from a quiet standing posture to steady state walking [11,12,13,14,15]. It requires the integration of different sensory information from the somatosensory, vestibular, and visual systems, as well as the coordination of multiple skeletal muscles [16, 17]. Deficits in these functional areas lead to an increased potential risk for falls [18,19,20]. Since most falls in older persons occur due to the inability to respond appropriately to an impaired balance and its ineffective compensation [21], parameters during GI may be sensitive indicators for detecting previously hidden issues and diseases.

GI can be described by two main phases: As shown in Fig. 1, after the preparatory (postural) phase (also called “anticipatory postural adjustments”), follows the phase of actual stepping (“execution phase”) [22,23,24]. During the preparatory phase, the center of mass (CoM) decouples from the center of pressure (CoP), thereby giving the body the necessary momentum to fall forward about the ankle joint [25,26,27]. This phase can be divided into two sub-phases: a release phase and an unloading phase [28]. During the release phase, the CoP is shifted toward the swing leg, resulting in an increasing horizontal ground reaction force thereby accelerating the CoM in the opposite direction [29]. It lasts until the farthest posterolateral movement of the CoP ( in Fig. 1), and its change in direction marks the beginning of the following unloading phase. Here, the CoP moves rapidly toward the stance leg ( in Fig. 1), thus unloading the swing leg for step execution ( in Fig. 1) [27]. The second main phase, the execution phase, starts as soon as the swing leg is no longer in contact with the ground and ends with the toe-off of the initial stance leg. It can be subdivided into a single support phase and a double support phase. The single support phase lasts from the toe-off of the swing leg until it contacts the ground again ( in Fig. 1), leading to the double support phase which ends with the toe-off of the prior stance leg in Fig. 1 [27].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Phases of gait initiation

Notes. Overview of the phases of gait initiation and the characteristic pattern of center of pressure (CoP, colored solid line), and center of mass (CoM, dashed black line) displacement during each sub-phase

Previous studies that have utilized GI to evaluate postural control have been mostly limited to age-related changes without considering the interindividual differences regarding health status and functioning [9]. In addition, previous studies have mainly focused on biomechanical parameters during the preparatory phase, omitting parameters during the actual execution of the very first step. However, impairments of measurable parameters during step execution have been shown to correlate with fall events [30,31,32]. Therefore, examining all sub-phases of GI in frail older individuals is crucial for a deeper understanding of the effects of frailty on motor patterns in this fall-prone population. This analysis could also provide the basis for improved diagnostics and targeted therapies, ultimately reducing the incidence of falls and improving the overall quality of life for this vulnerable population.


This study examines whether spatial and temporal parameters of gait initiation differ between groups of older adults with different levels of frailty, and whether fear of falling, and balance ability are correlated with the height of lifting the food during gait initiation. We hypothesize that, due to poor physical function, the different sub-phases, and, consequently, the total duration of GI is elongated, and the first step length is shortened in older adults with frailty compared to age-mates without frailty. Regarding the maximum foot clearance during the first step, two opposite assumptions are conceivable: Either, also because of poor physical condition, the foot is raised lower or, because of increased fear of falling and lower confidence in balance, it is higher as a protective mechanism.



All participants were grouped based on the score of Fried’s Frailty phenotype model [4] into the groups “Non-frail” (n = 36, frailty score = 0), “Pre-frail” (n = 14, frailty score = 1 or 2), and “Frail” (n = 11, frailty score = 3, 4 or 5) (see Table 1 for details).

Table 1 Means ± Standard Deviations of characteristics of the study participants and the GI variable per group and results of ANOVA on differences between the means

Included in the study were participants able to walk without walking aids. Exclusion criteria were: cognitive impairment (< 24 points in the Mini-Mental-Status-Test (MMSE) according to Folstein et al. [34] or a severely limited mobility that precludes independent care (e.g., bedridden). The latter was determined during a screening interview and was considered fulfilled if the participant was largely able to move independently within the home. Participants with severe visual impairments, uncontrolled cardiovascular disorders, uncontrolled Parkinson’s syndrome, acute chronic obstructive bronchitis, or acute states of confusion (e.g., delirium) were also not eligible to participate in this study.

All participants gave their written and oral consent. The study was approved by the independent medical Ethics Committee at the RWTH Aachen Faculty of Medicine (ethics committee number 142/18).


The study was performed in the motion analysis laboratory of the department of geriatric medicine of the university hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany. A three-dimensional optical motion capture system (Qualisys AB, 5+ series, Göteburg, Sweden) with 10 cameras tracked the marker trajectories at 120 Hz. In total, 52 reflective markers were placed at anatomical landmarks on participants’ bodies following a prescribed marker set protocol [35]. The calibrated anatomical system technique (CAST) was used to place and determine the movement of segments. The measurements were done using Qualisys Track Manager (Version 19.1, Qualisys AB, Gothenburg, Sweden). After markers labeling at the Qualisys Track Manager software, raw data were exported to .c3d for further analysis with the software Visual 3D (Version 6.0, C-Motion. Inc., Germantown, MD, USA). Force data were recorded by two force plates (Bertec Corporation, Columbus, Ohio, USA), which were embedded in the surface in the middle of a 10-m walkway. The movement and force data were filtered using a fourth-order low-pass Butterworth filter with a cut-off frequency of 5 Hz.

Frailty assessment

In all participants, the five criteria of Fried’s phenotype of frailty [4] were assessed before GI data collection: unintentional weight loss, subjectively perceived fatigue, low physical activity, slow walking speed, and muscle weakness. For this purpose, questions were first asked about unintentional weight loss of more than 5 kg within the last year and about subjectively perceived fatigue. Last-mentioned was done by the “Fatigue assessment according to Fried”, which takes up two questions of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [36]. Using a short version of the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire [37], physical activity was assessed by asking about various leisure time activities within the last 4 weeks. Walking speed was measured over a 4.57 m walking distance, and finally, to detect possible muscle weakness, strength measurement of the dominant hand was performed three times with calculation of the mean value. We used Fried’s cut-off values to assess the grip strength. One point was awarded for each deficit in one of the five categories. If one to two categories are fulfilled, the classification as “pre-frail” is made, from three as “frail”. Moreover, to evaluate the fear of falling and the balance ability of the old participants, the questionnaires of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) [38, 39] and the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC) [40, 41] were collected before starting the GI trials.

Experimental protocol to analyze gait initiation

For the measurement process, each participant was initially asked to stand quietly on a force platform in a relaxed posture on both legs. Both feet were then placed in a parallel position on the first force plate with the toes close to the second one. The width was not dictated and should correspond to their natural stance. Acquisition of force and motion data was triggered, just before the participants received a verbal cue, to begin walking. In response to the cue, they initiated gait with their leading leg at their usual walking pace until the end of the movement lab which corresponded to a walking distance of about 4 m. To become familiar with the experimental protocol, each participant first performed a practice trial. The practice trial was then immediately followed by five data collection trials. Each participant had the opportunity to take a break after a trial to avoid any exhaustion effects. For the study, every participant wore comfortable clothing, including a t-shirt, shorts, and anti-slip socks.

Calculation of the biomechanical parameters

To describe GI, it was subdivided into the four sub-phases described above. Parameters, including the duration of the release phase (s), unloading phase (s), single support phase (s), and double support phase (s), were calculated. We used specific events to automatically identify the distinct phases by using the analysis software Visual 3D. The start of GI, and therefore also of the release phase, was defined to be 0.15 s before the minimum velocity of the CoP in the walking direction. The furthest point of posterolateral CoP displacement then marked the beginning of the unloading phase. The following single support phase started as soon as the toes of the swinging leg lost contact with the ground. The last sub-phase, the double support phase, was defined by the recontact of the heel of the swinging leg with the ground and ended with the lift-off of the toes of the initial stance leg.

The total duration of GI and the percentages of each sub-phase on the total duration of a respective study participant were calculated separately.

The length of the first step (m) was calculated between the first toe off-event of the swing phase and the initial contact of the foot with the force plate.

The maximum foot clearance (max. FC) during the first step (m) was calculated by the maximum value of displacement of a marker at the midfoot. The marker is a virtually created marker, whose position was determined centrally, i.e. at a 50% distance between the real markers at the toe and heel of the feet.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation (SD)) were calculated for demographic data (age, height, weight, and BMI) and each determined parameter from the arithmetic mean values of the five trials per person. Between-group differences in the total duration of GI, the durations of the four sub-phases, the step length of the first step, and the max. FC were tested with a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables. Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc analysis was used during follow-up testing.

Since the duration of the sub-phases is also affected by a change in the total duration of the GI, we found that the relative durations of the sub-phases to the total duration of the GI is another interesting aspect to illuminate. Therefore, we additionally calculated the relative proportion (%) of the phase durations of the sub-phases in relation to the total duration of the GI. Therefore, group differences in the percentages of the different phase durations of GI were tested statistically with a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Follow-up tests on separate univariate ANOVAs were conducted when appropriate. The level of significance was 0.05.

In addition to comparing the max. FC during the first step between groups, we also investigated the results of the FES-I and ABC for a possible correlation with this parameter. This was done for all participants (n = 61) to determine if there is an correlation between max. FC and fear of falling and/or confidence in balance, regardless of the participant’s frailty score. For this purpose, Spearman’s rank correlation was computed for each case. The interpretation of the effect strength was based on the classification according to Cohen [33]. Accordingly, the effect limits are 0.10–0.29 (weak), 0.30–0.49 (moderate), and greater or equal to 0.5 (strong).

All statistical tests were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 27 (Armonk, New York, USA).


Of initially 92 adults measured, 31 participants were not included in the data analysis due to insufficient data acquisition and/or quality and the application of exclusion criteria. Ultimately, the data of n = 61 participants aged 65 years and older were analyzed. The female to male ratio was 20/16, 8/6, and 2/9 for the non-frail, pre-frail and frail group, respectively. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to height, weight, and BMI, but age and the scores FES-I and ABC (Table 1). Pre-frail people were not significantly older than the non-frail participants, but the mean age of the frail group was 6 years higher than that of the non-frail group (about 79 compared to 73 years) which was significant (Table 2). The frail group showed a significantly higher FES-index than the non-frail group, and a significantly increased ABC index than both, non-frail and pre-frail group.

Table 2 Results of the post-hoc tests for variables with significant differences between groups

The GI variables unloading phase duration, double support phase duration, the total duration, and length of step 1 showed significant differences between the three groups (Table 1). For release phase duration, single support phase duration, and maximum FC during the first step, the differences between groups were not significant.

Post-hoc tests with Bonferroni corrections revealed that the unloading and double support and, in consequence, total duration of GI was significantly longer in the frail than the non-frail group (Table 2, Fig. 2a). The pre-frail group values were in-between the values of the two other groups without significant differences to both. A one-way MANOVA found no significant differences between the groups regarding the percentages of the sub-phases, F(6, 112) = 1.782, p = 0.109, partial η2 = 0.087). However, on closer inspection of the percentage distribution of the individual sub-phases, it becomes evident that there is a notable increase in the percentage of the unloading phase and double support phase, while there is a corresponding decrease in the percentage of the release phase and single support phase with increasing frailty (Fig. 2b). The length of the first step of pre-frail and frail people was significantly smaller than that of the non-frail group (Table 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Graphic illustration of the changes in the durations

Notes. Total duration of GI and its division into the four sub-phases in seconds (a), and, in comparison, the distribution of the percentages of the sub-phases (b) of total GI duration

Spearman’s rank correlation was computed to assess the relationship between the max. FC during the first step and both questionnaires (FES-I and ABC) (see Fig. 3 and Fig. 4). Between the FES-I and the max. FC a moderate negative correlation was found, r(59) = − 0.31, p = 0.016. Between the ABC and max. FC a moderate positive correlation was found, r(59) = 0.32, p = 0.012. The higher the fear of falling, or the lower the confidence in balance in old people, the lower the foot was lifted during the first step.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Correlation between the maximum foot clearance and the score of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International questionnaire

Fig. 4
figure 4

Correlation between the maximum foot clearance and the score of the Activities-specific Balance confidence scale


The main goal of this study was to describe and analyze the gait initiation task in old individuals during different frailty stages. Our hypotheses of increased duration for GI and a decreased first step length because of reduced physical function in frail people were supported by our results, whereas for the time no significant difference between pre-frail and frail patients was shown. Apart from the frailty status, older adults show increased duration for GI and shorter step length compared to the young reference group. Previous studies described a gait strategy involving decreased gait speed and shortened step length to stabilize dynamic balance [42, 43]. Slow gait speed in general is one of the most established parameter for defining individuals as pre-frail or frail [42], and has already been the focus of various previous gait analyses, e.g. [43] or Kressig et al. [9]. Notably, when we look at the results for the individual sub-phases, the absolute duration of the release phase during GI did not differ significantly between the groups and was even similar to the young reference group. However, by analyzing the percentage duration of the release phase on the total duration for GI, a noticeable shortening in pre-frail and frail older adults can be observed. During this phase, the CoP first shifts towards the swing leg thereby allowing a forward momentum. A shortening may cause insufficient weight transfer and movement thus leading to a more unstable GI that is prone to falls. The resulting lengthening of both, the percentage and absolute duration of the unloading phase, implies that the CoP moves more slowly toward the stance leg, which in turn leads to the overall slower gait of frail adults. Upon closer examination of the absolute times, the double support phase shows the most recognizable difference besides the total time, which is even more evident in comparison to the young reference group. Also, the percentage double support phase lengthens with increased frailty, and the percentage single support phase shortens. This in turn results in a decreased step length, as evidenced by the decreased step length associated with a higher frailty score. Among others Mbourou et al. [44] and Kwon et al. [45] examined the duration of the double support phase during the GI task period in older fallers, all noticing a much smaller first step length and a longer duration of the double support phase congruent to our findings for frail participants. Besides the absolute time, also the percentage time of the double support phase on GI increased with frailty. Therefore, the lengthening of the double support period has a direct impact on gait characteristics and may be used in frail adults to stabilize their inefficient gait control.

Taken together, our results suggest that frailty leads to a more cautious and conservative gait strategy. This is immediately evident when starting walking, as individuals with frailty tend to maintain dynamic balance by reducing gait velocity and taking shorter steps to prevent falls. Previous studies have already shown that older individuals walk more slowly and with shorter steps than young people [25, 29, 46]. Our research demonstrates that the frailty syndrome leads to a further deterioration of these parameters during GI. Additionally, we found that frailty is associated with a shortened portion of the release phase, indicating uncertainty in walking off. So, in the future, analysis of the GI or the very first step could be sufficient to identify biomechanical parameters that indicate increased gait insecurity and fall risk, without requiring a comprehensive gait analysis.

Except for the first step length, a significant difference was always demonstrated between non-frail and frail adults, while the pre-frail and frail groups did not differ for any of the parameters.

Nevertheless, there were clearly noticeable trends for the groups, which also allow conclusions to be drawn for older individuals with greater frailty: Frail patients experience significant delays in GI compared to non-frail counterparts, without a clear trend in maximum FC. Individuals with higher fear of falling tend to lower their max. FC, aiming to stay closer to the ground, potentially minimizing fall distance and aiding quick recovery. Additionally, a positive association with the ABC score suggests that lifting the foot requires adequate self-confidence in balance. However, the practicability of using FC as a frailty assessment tool remains uncertain.

Some limitations of this study must be considered. In general, the participants should be more evenly distributed in the groups, and the small group size of pre-frail, respectively frail adults, should be considered. For instance, to improve scatter plot distribution, it would be valuable to include participants with higher FES-I and lower ABC scores. Another limitation worth mentioning is that the initial contact of the foot used to delimit one step may have been constituted with either the medial foot or the heel. Although this variability is characteristic of the gait initiation of frail elderly people and, therefore, the movement pattern of this population, it may have affected the temporal and spatial phases of gait initiation.

Analyzing movement patterns of older adults and, particularly, frail individuals proved to be a challenging task. Nevertheless, we were able to identify significant trends. Notably, significant age differences exist between frailty groups, yet analyzing age independently lacks clinical utility. Future research should verify results’ transferability with larger samples, especially including severely frail participants.

We found a moderate correlation between the fear of falling respectively the confidence in balance and the maximum food clearance during the first step. However, the correlation was driven by a single participant with very low confidence in balance respectively high fear of falling. Thus, final conclusions on these correlations should be based on data of a group with a more equal distribution of the fear of falling respectively confidence in balance.

Recognizing that our results were derived from a controlled laboratory setting, their direct application to real-life scenarios might be limited. Our results are to be tested and verified with simpler measurement methods. Inertial sensors as simpler and cheaper devices may provide a valid and more realizable alternative for measuring e. g. overall GI time in clinical routine [32, 47, 48]. Our results, gathered in a controlled lab setting and focusing on straight walking, may not directly apply to real-life scenarios. Factors like footwear, varied terrains, and changing directions in daily activities influence movement and balance differently. Thus, while our findings mark the initial phase for new diagnostic tools, their direct translation to everyday situations might be limited. Yet, these findings pave the way for developing and adapting diagnostic tools for everyday use.


In summary, we have found that prolonged times for GI and a shorter first step length are associated with higher frailty. Therefore, spatiotemporal parameters in GI exhibit potential as predictors of functional decline and fall risk associated with frailty. This insight could streamline the classification of frail patients, aiding in timely interventions to prevent physical decline and falls. However, while our study points to the potential of targeted exercise interventions, specifically focusing on improving GI times, randomized controlled trials are necessary to validate their efficacy in fall prevention among the elderly.

Availability of data and materials

The raw data used to support the conclusion of this article are available from the corresponding authors upon request.



Activities-specific Balance confidence scale


One-way analysis of variance


Body mass index


Calibrated anatomical system technique




Center of mass


Center of pressure


Degrees of freedom

F(v 1, v 2):

F-value with v1 and v2 degrees of freedom


Foot clearance


Falls Efficacy Scale-International


Gait initiation






One-way multivariate analysis of variance






Mini-Mental State Examination


Total number of individuals

η2 :

Effect size



R2 :

Coefficient of determination




Standard deviation


United States of America


  1. Department of Economic and Social Affairs; Gerland P, Hertog S, Wheldon M, Kantorova V, Gu D, Gonnella G, Williams I, Zeifman L, Bay G, Castanheira H, Kamiya Y, Bassarsky L, Gaigbe-Togbe V, Spoorenberg T. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results Ten key messages. 2022.

  2. Jung D, Kim J, Kim M, Won CW, Mun KR. Frailty assessment using temporal gait characteristics and a long short-term memory network. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2021;25(9):3649–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rhynehart A, Dunlevy C, Hayes K, O’Connell J, O’Shea D, O’Malley E. The Association of Physical Function Measures with Frailty, falls history, and metabolic syndrome in a population with complex obesity. Front Rehabil Sci. 2021;2:716392.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):146–56. Available from:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Toosizadeh N, Stocker H, Thiede R, Mohler J, Mills JL, Najafi B. Alterations in gait parameters with peripheral artery disease: the importance of pre-frailty as a confounding variable. Vasc Med. 2016;21(6):520–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Fontecha J, Hervás R, Bravo J, Navarro FJ. A Mobile and ubiquitous approach for supporting frailty assessment in elderly people. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(9):e197.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Pamoukdjian F, Paillaud E, Zelek L, Laurent M, Lévy V, Landre T, Sebbane G. Measurement of gait speed in older adults to identify complications associated with frailty: A systematic review. J Geriatr Oncol. 2015;6(6):484–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hass CJ, Gregor RJ, Waddell DE, Oliver A, Smith DW, Fleming RP, et al. The influence of tai chi training on the center of pressure trajectory during gait initiation in older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(10):1593–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kressig RW, Gregor RJ, Oliver A, Waddell D, Smith W, O’Grady M, et al. Temporal and spatial features of gait in older adults transitioning to frailty. Gait Posture. 2004 Aug;20(1):30–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wolf SL, Sattin RW, Kutner M, O’grady M, Greenspan AI, Gregor RJ. Intense Tai Chi Exercise Training and Fall Occurrences in Older, Transitionally Frail Adults: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:1693–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Miller CA, Verstraete MC. A mechanical energy analysis of gait initiation. Gait Posture. 1999;9(3):158–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Carlsöö S. The initiation of walking. Cells Tissues Organs. 1966;65:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mann RA, Hagy JL, White V, Liddell D. The initiation of gait. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(2):232–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Brenière Y, Cuong Do M, Bouisset S. Are dynamic phenomena prior to stepping essential to walking? J Mot Behav. 1987;19(1):62–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yiou E, Caderby T, Delafontaine A, Fourcade P, Honeine JL. Balance control during gait initiation: State-of-the-art and research perspectives. World J Orthop. 2017;8(11):815–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hass CJ, Waddell DE, Fleming RP, Juncos JL, Gregor RJ. Gait initiation and dynamic balance control in Parkinson’s disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(11):2172–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yiou E, Artico R, Teyssedre CA, Labaune O, Fourcade P. Anticipatory postural control of stability during gait initiation over obstacles of different height and distance made under reaction-time and self-initiated instructions. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10(SEP2016):449.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Patla AE, Frank JS, Winter DA, Bsc R, Prentice Bsc S, Prasad S. Age-related changes in balance control system : initiation of stepping. Clin Biomech. 1993;8(4):179–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Robinovitch SN, Feldman F, Yang Y, Schonnop R, Leung PM, Sarraf T, et al. Video capture of the circumstances of falls in elderly people residing in long-term care: an observational study. Lancet. 2013;381(9860):47–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tisserand R, Robert T, Chabaud P, Bonnefoy M, Chèze L. Elderly fallers enhance dynamic stability through anticipatory postural adjustments during a choice stepping reaction time. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10(NOV2016):613.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Brauer SG, Woollacott M, Shumway-Cook A. The influence of a concurrent cognitive task on the compensatory stepping response to a perturbation in balance-impaired and healthy elders. Gait Posture. 2002;15(1):83–93. Available from:

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fiolkowski P, Brunt D, Bishop M, Woo R. Does postural instability affect the initiation of human gait? Neurosci Lett. 2002;323:167–70. Available from:

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mickelborough J, van der Linden ML, Tallis RC, Ennos AR. Muscle activity during gait initiation in normal elderly people. Gait Posture. 2004;19:50–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Won JM, Timsit M, Mesure S, Massion J, Fran JP, Del A. Asymmetry of gait initiation in patients with unilateral knee arthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:194–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Halliday SE, Winter DA, Frank JS, Patla AE, Prince F. The initiation of gait in young, elderly, and Parkinson’s disease subjects. Gait Posture. 1998;8(1):8–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Henriksson M, Hirschfeld H. Physically active older adults display alterations in gait initiation. Gait Posture. 2005;21(3):289–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Richards J. The comprehensive textbook of clinical biomechanics. 2nd ed. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Archer SE, Winter DA, Prince F. Initiation of gait: a comparison between young, elderly, and Parkinson’s disease subjects. Gait Posture. 1994;2(1):56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Polcyn AE, Lipsitz LA, Kerrigan DC, Collins JJ. Age-related changes in the initiation of gait: degradation of central mechanisms for momentum generation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79:1582–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hamacher D, Hamacher D, Schega L. Towards the importance of minimum toe clearance in level ground walking in a healthy elderly population. Gait Posture. 2014;40(4):727–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Johnson L, Buckley JG, Scally AJ, Elliott DB. Multifocal spectacles increase variability in toe clearance and risk of tripping in the elderly. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48(4):1466–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mariani B, Rochat S, Büla CJ, Aminian K. Heel and toe clearance estimation for gait analysis using wireless inertial sensors. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2012;59(12 PART2):3162–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed; 1988. p. 79–81.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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;12:189–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cappozzo A, Catani F, Della Croce U, Leardini A. Position and orientation in space of bones during movement: anatomical frame definition and determination. Clin Biomech. 1995;10(4):171–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Orme JG, Reis J. Factorial and discriminant validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. J Clin Psychol. 1986;42(1):28–33. Available from:

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Taylor HL, Jacobs DR, Schucker B, Knudsen J, Leon AS, Debacker G. A questionnaire for the assessment of leisure time physical activities. J Chron Dis. 1978;31:741–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tinetti ME, Richman D, Powell L. Falls efficacy as a measure of fear of falling. J Gerontol Psychol Sci. 1990;45:239–43. Available from:

  39. Dias N, Kempen GIJM, Todd CJ, Beyer N, Freiberger E, Piot-Ziegler C, et al. Die Deutsche version der Falls Efficacy Scale-International Version (FES-I). Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2006;39(4):297–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Powell LE, Myers AM. The activities-specific balance confidence (ABC) scale. J Gerontol: Med Sci. 1995;50(1):M28–34. Available from:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schott N. Deutsche Adaptation der “Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale” zur Erfassung der Sturzassoziierten Selbstwirksamkeit. Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2008;41(6):475–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Schwenk M, Howe C, Saleh A, Mohler J, Grewal G, Armstrong D, et al. Frailty and technology: A systematic review of gait analysis in those with frailty. Gerontology. 2013;60:79–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Langlois F, Vu TTM, Kergoat MJ, Chassé K, Dupuis G, Bherer L. The multiple dimensions of frailty: physical capacity, cognition, and quality of life. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24(9):1429–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mbourou GA, Lajoie Y, Teasdale N. Step length variability at gait initiation in elderly fallers and non-fallers, and young adults. Gerontology. 2003;49:21–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kwon MS, Kwon YR, Park YS, Kim JW. Comparison of gait patterns in elderly fallers and non-fallers. In: Technology and health care. IOS Press; 2018. p. S427–36.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lu C, Amundsen Huffmaster SL, Harvey JC, MacKinnon CD. Anticipatory postural adjustment patterns during gait initiation across the adult lifespan. Gait Posture. 2017;1(57):182–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bonora G, Carpinella I, Cattaneo D, Chiari L, Ferrarin M. A new instrumented method for the evaluation of gait initiation and step climbing based on inertial sensors: a pilot application in Parkinson’s disease. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2015;12:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Santhiranayagam BK, Lai DT, Begg RK, Palaniswami M. Estimation of end point foot clearance points from inertial sensor data. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:6503–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank all participants for taking part in this study and for their kind consent to the utilization of their data.


Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. We would like to thank The Robert Bosch Stiftung, whose financial support in the funding project “Department of Geriatric Medicine, at the medical faculty of RWTH Aachen University” (grant number 32.5.1140.0009.0) made the establishment of the movement laboratory possible in the first place. Apart from this, the presented work did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



JH performed the measurements. TL, JB, CB, and FH were involved in planning and supervising the work. JH and JB processed the experimental data and performed the analysis. JH took the lead in writing the manuscript and designed the figs. HS aided in interpreting the results and worked on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jana Maria Hommen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research related to human use complies with all the relevant national regulations, institutional policies and was performed under the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration, and has been approved by the authors’ institutional review board (EK 142/18). All participants gave.

their written and oral consent.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hommen, J.M., Batista, J.P., Bollheimer, L.C. et al. Movement patterns during gait initiation in older adults with various stages of frailty: a biomechanical analysis. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act 21, 1 (2024).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: