Relationship Between Aerobic Capacity, Mobility, and Spatial Navigation in Healthy Individuals and Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cross-Sectional Study.

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between physical ability and spatial navigation in older adults with mild cognitive impairment and healthy controls, using the floor maze test. Study participants (n = 58) were subjected to the following tests: floor maze test, sit-to-stand, 8-foot up-and-go, and aerobic steps. Factorial analyses showed that performance of the physical tests combined explained approximately 87% of the sample variability. Mobility (R2 = .22, p ≤ .001) and aerobic capacity (R2 = .27, p ≤ .001) were both associated with delayed maze time in the floor maze test. Low levels of aerobic capacity were also associated with an increased odds to perform poorly in the delayed maze time after controlling for age, sex, and mild cognitive impairment diagnosis (odds ratio = 3.1; 95% confidence interval [1.0, 9.5]; p = .04). Aerobic capacity and mobility are associated with spatial navigation in patients with mild cognitive impairment and healthy older adults.

Beyond the Mini-Mental State Examination: The Use of Physical and Spatial Navigation Tests to Help to Screen for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Spatial navigation and dual-task (DT) performance may represent a low-cost approach to the identification of the cognitive decline in older adults and may support the clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD). OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of different types of motor tasks in differentiating older persons with MCI and AD from healthy peers. METHODS: Older adults aged 60 years or over (n = 105; healthy = 39; MCI = 23; AD = 43) were evaluated by the floor maze test (FMT), the senior fitness test, and DT performance. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the accuracy of the tests. We also performed principal component analysis (PCA) and logistic regression analysis to explore the variance and possible associations of the variables within the sample. RESULTS: FMT (AUC = 0.84, sensitivity = 75.7%, specificity = 76.1%, p < 0.001) and DT (AUC = 0.87, sensitivity = 80.4%, specificity = 86.9%, p < 0.001) showed the highest performance for distinguishing MCI from AD individuals. Moreover, FMT presented better sensitivity in distinguishing AD patients from their healthy peers (AUC = 0.93, sensitivity = 94%, specificity = 85.6%, p < 0.001) when compared to the Mini-Mental State Examination. PCA revealed that the motor test performance explains a total of 73.9% of the variance of the sample. Additionally, the results of the motor tests were not influenced by age and education. CONCLUSION: Spatial navigation tests showed better accuracy than usual cognitive screening tests in distinguishing patients with neurocognitive disorders.