ISPGR recently approved the Society’s first official local chapter, marking an exciting milestone for the society. This post details the successful launch and inaugural conference for the society’s first local chapter, the Ontario Society for Posture and Gait Research (OSPGR). ISPGR remains committed to supporting the launch of other official local chapters. Please follow the society’s postings via the blog, social media, and newsletters for further specific details relating to this process.

As with most good ideas, the planning for this meeting started over a beer on a patio. Initial conversations took place prior to Covid-19 and resumed in earnest in the months leading up to the ISPGR World Congress in Maastricht in 2025. From the outset, the singular aim of this meeting was to establish a mechanism for an accessible student-focused gathering for Ontario-based trainees, researchers, clinicians, community members, and industry partners that intentionally moved beyond traditional posture and gait research dissemination by emphasizing mentorship and meaningful knowledge mobilization in off-years between ISPGR World Congress meetings. We succeeded in achieving this goal.

The meeting took place at York University in Toronto on June 4 & 5, 2026 and featured a keynote address delivered by Bill McIlroy (Professor Emeritus, University of Waterloo), who encouraged the audience to take chances, learn new techniques, align with things that are motivating, and to engage in meaningful collaborations. The meeting also included engaging panel discussions on ‘Priorities for balance and mobility in the community: Lived experiences’ from community/hospital-based clinicians and health service providers, ‘Career paths outside of academia’ from previous ISPGR trainees now working in industry, and ‘Conceptualizing Lab-to-Market: A conversation around innovation and regulatory processes’ related to commercialization. Karl Zabjek (University of Toronto) presented a proposal for data sharing opportunities that could exist across OSPGR sites.

Trainees at the undergraduate to post-doctoral levels presented their research during poster or 3MT ® presentations. Maureen Krelove (York University) was the recipient of the Emily McIntosh 3MT® Competition Award, named in dedication to Dr. Emily McIntosh, a former trainee of Lori Vallis (University of Guelph). In total, 100 attendees (including speakers) from 14 institutions attended this inaugural event. Initial feedback has been positive, with attendees providing high ratings for the panel discussions, networking and professional development opportunities, and poster sessions. Attendees identified the key takeaways as centering on the importance of community, showcasing impactful research, and creating opportunities for collaboration and growth.

As the first official Chapter of the ISPGR, we were happy to take on the responsibility and challenge of establishing a template for the development of other Chapters and of designing a unique knowledge-sharing event while still aligning to ISPGR themes. We look forward to seeing everyone at the 2028 Ontario Chapter meeting!

About the Author

Falls are a major focus of posture and gait research. However, most falls research has focused on risk factors emerging in later life, such as muscle weakness, sensory decline and cognitive impairment. Far less attention has been paid to whether lifelong coordination difficulties may shape fall risk across the lifespan. Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD), often known as dyspraxia, affects around 5–6% of children and frequently persists into adulthood. Characterised by difficulties in balance, motor planning and coordination, DCD represents a sizeable population in whom fall risk has rarely been examined directly. We therefore set out to determine whether falls in this group have been underestimated.

We conducted an international online survey of adults with DCD (mean age 36 ± 12 years), typically developing adults (mean age = 44 ± 15 years), as well as parents of children with and without DCD. Over 400 participants were asked how often they experienced a fall, in what contexts these falls occurred, and the consequences these had on their daily life. We found that adults with DCD were nine times more likely to fall at least once or twice a month compared with adults without DCD. Among children with the condition, more than half experienced falls at least once a week. These were not harmless stumbles: Participants reported injuries ranging from sprains and fractures, to concussions and knocked-out teeth, and more than a third of adults with DCD had broken a bone because of a fall. The psychological toll was equally significant. Many of the adults reported being afraid to walk alone or use stairs, and 72% of children and adults with DCD were highly concerned about falling. Respondents described avoiding social events, sport and everyday activities. Adults also expressed concern about how their balance difficulties might affect them as they age.

Despite these experiences, DCD is currently absent from major fall prevention guidelines. Public health messaging typically focuses on ageing or neurological disease, yet our findings show that coordination-related fall risk begins much earlier and can persist across the lifespan. For posture and gait researchers, this highlights an overlooked population in whom chronic motor vulnerability may shape long-term fall risk. Greater recognition of DCD could inform earlier identification of balance difficulties and more targeted intervention strategies. Falls linked to DCD are often dismissed as ‘clumsiness’, but they represent a persistent and distressing challenge for many individuals. Broadening the scope of falls research to include developmental coordination difficulties may ultimately strengthen prevention efforts across the lifespan.

Figure 1. Distribution of self-reported fall frequency in adults and children with and without Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD). Diverging bar plots show the percentage of participants reporting different fall frequencies for adults (left) and children (right), comparing individuals with DCD (pink) and typically developing (TD; grey) controls. Fall frequency categories range from “Never” to “>5 times a week.”

Parr, J. V., Wood, S., Maw, K., Payne, S., Wright, D. J., Ellmers, T., Mills, R., Marshall, B., Jarvis, C., Mohamed, M. O., & Wood, G. (2026). Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Hidden Epidemic of Falls. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 14(1), jmld.2025-0043, jmld.2025-0043. https://doi.org/10.1123/jmld.2025-0043

About the Author

Robotic training devices have firmly claimed their place in modern rehabilitation. From mobile exoskeletons to therapeutic assistive systems, rehabilitation centers are increasingly using technology to improve patients’ walking ability. While many of these devices show promise for gait rehabilitation, their rapid introduction into clinical practice also raises questions. How can we best employ these devices in practice? Which patients are most likely to benefit? And which functional goals are they able to support?

Almost five years ago, a new robotic harnessing system (RYSEN from Motek Medical) was introduced at Heliomare Rehabilitation Center (Wijk aan Zee, the Netherlands). This body weight support system assists patients during standing and walking by partially unloading the body, enabling early and safe gait training. The device allows patients to walk freely in all directions while receiving adjustable body weight support. What makes a system like the RYSEN unique is that support is not limited to vertical unloading. It can also provide forward, backward, and sideward forces (scan QR in Figure 1 for videos). This opens up possibilities to challenge balance, stimulate propulsion, or assist stability. On top of that, the system integrates augmented reality, projecting interactive games onto the floor, which may facilitate motor learning. Notably, the RYSEN is one example within a growing class of multidirectional, overground body weight support systems, with comparable devices such as the FLOAT by RehaStim also available.

With so many possible avenues for intervention, therapists started asking questions: What training goals can we target? How much support should we give? How do we choose the right force settings?

These questions formed the basis of my PhD project. In observational studies, we explored which percentages of body weight support were chosen and what goals were pursued in current clinical practice. In experimental studies, we investigated the effects of vertical, forward, backward, and sideward forces on gait parameters and muscle activity to find out if they could evoke desired adaptations in gait in people after stroke and spinal cord injury (e.g. see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Schematic overview of the different experimental RYSEN conditions. Scan the QR code to view videos. BWS: body weight support; ML: mediolateral forces; AP: anteroposterior forces.  

The emerging findings are encouraging. Our observational study demonstrated that the RYSEN is well accepted by both patients and therapists, and that augmented reality–based games enhanced participants’ confidence in balance during training. However, differences in training goals and intensity between modalities were limited, suggesting that further research and implementation strategies are needed to fully realize the device’s potential. Experimental studies indicated promising opportunities for targeted gait training. For example, in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury, even small amounts of vertical body weight support (10%) resulted in an approximately 10% improvement in balance confidence. Additionally, the application of mediolateral forces, restricting sideward movement with a contrary-directed force, produced changes in step parameters and muscle activity consistent with enhanced balance control, including a narrower step width and reduced activity of the tibialis anterior and peroneus longus muscles, which are primary involved in the mediolateral ankle balance strategy (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Mean muscle activation patterns across the gait cycle during with mediolateral (ML) forces for individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury (n=15) during Unsupported Walking (UW; black), 10 % BWS + mediolateral forces (blue) and 30 % BWS + mediolateral forces (red). The colored lines represent mean values for the different conditions. Horizontal boxes at the top of each figure represent the part of the gait cycle where significant differences occur, based on statistical parametric mapping (SPM). The main effect is shown in black and post-hoc effects are shown in blue and pink.

Our results provide valuable first insights into the potential effects of multidirectional body weight support, but guidelines for structured application in clinical practice are still limited. Fully unlocking the potential and clinical application of robotic harnessing devices like the RYSEN (and similar devices such as RehaStim’s FLOAT) therefore requires continued collaboration between researchers, engineers, clinicians, and patients. Future studies could explore the use of explicit training instructions and the integration of therapeutic exercises to determine if and how effects on motor control (and ultimately: functioning) can be optimized across different clinical populations and settings.

On January 19, 2026, I defended my thesis at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. The project was supervised by prof. dr. Han Houdijk, prof. dr. Coen van Bennekom, dr. Tom Buurke, and dr. Sina David. For those interested in the details, the full thesis can be found here.

About the Author

ISPGR was delighted to award Dr Christopher McCrum its 2025 Promising Scientist Award (PSA). In his PSA Plenary Talk at the 2025 World Congress in Maastricht, Netherlands, Dr McCrum reflected on how viewing fall prevention through the lens of elite sprint coaching has influenced the questions he asks, the methods he uses, and the way he interprets results. This post summarizes the key ideas and messages from that lecture.

Last year at the 2025 ISPGR World Congress, I was honoured to receive this award and to give a presentation about the first stages of my scientific career. I discussed not so much about the scientific nuts and bolts of my research but on one of the perspectives that I look at my research from and how that has aided me throughout my research so far. In this blog post, I will give a brief summary of the key points and messages of my talk.

My background and main motivation for my studies during my bachelor and masters was (elite) sports coaching, specifically in sprinting. At first glance, elite sprint performance and fall prevention in older adults may seem worlds apart. But the central argument of my talk was that changing perspectives can unlock new insights and progress, particularly in a field as complex as fall prevention. This idea resonated strongly with the broader theme of the ISPGR conference, which emphasized interdisciplinary collaboration and the value of looking beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries [1].

In my work, fall prevention is not about preventing all falls, nor is it about minimizing movement or risk-taking. Most falls in older adults occur due to trips and slips during walking, often involving large, sudden balance disturbances. These are the events I am primarily interested in understanding and preventing. Equally important is recognizing that older adults are not a homogeneous group, and that the mechanisms underlying a fall matter. Preventing a slow collapse during a transfer is not the same problem as recovering from a sudden trip during walking.

In sprint coaching, performance can be viewed through interacting “targets”, for example: Structure (e.g. muscle–tendon properties); Capacity (e.g., strength and power); or Technique/skill/coordination. Crucially, coaching also forces you to ask where an individual sits on each of these dimensions relative to the point of diminishing returns. Strength is not always the limiting factor. More conditioning is not always the answer. Sometimes, what matters most, is skill or technique.

This perspective influenced how I approached fall prevention research from early on. Rather than asking only whether older adults are weaker, slower, or less active, I became interested in whether they are given the opportunity to practice the specific skills required to resist and recover from balance loss. As a result, a large part of my research has focused on perturbation-based balance training (PBT) – exposing people to repeated, unexpected balance disturbances during walking so that they can learn to recover more effectively [2]. My own and others’ research consistently shows that older adults are capable of rapid adaptation to repeated perturbations. Improvements in reactive gait recovery can occur within a single session, and can be partly retained over weeks and even years.

Ageing is associated with well-documented declines in muscle-tendon properties, strength, power, and Type II muscle fibre size. These factors are clearly relevant for movement and fall risk, and exercise interventions targeting them are effective at reducing falls at the population level. However, while muscle structure and capacity matter, they do not appear to be the primary limiting factors for learning to recover from a trip during walking [3]. From a coaching perspective, this is not surprising: improving strength does not automatically translate into improved skill unless the skill itself is trained.

Another recurring theme in the field is whether being physically active protects against age-related declines in reactive balance. Our data suggest a nuanced answer. Reactive gait recovery does decline with age, even when older adults are matched to younger individuals on habitual physical activity [4]. However, the capacity to adapt to repeated perturbations is largely preserved: Older adults can still learn, even if their baseline performance is lower. This distinction matters. It suggests that interventions do not only need to consider how to prevent physical decline but also how to leverage preserved adaptability through appropriate task-specific training.

One outcome of taking a more skill-based perspective is the recognition that the ability to resist or avoid falls is not actually a single ability. We can distinguish between:

• Proactive gait adaptability: detecting threats and adjusting gait accordingly (e.g., stepping over an obstacle)
• Gait robustness: resisting disturbances without losing balance (e.g., tolerating uneven cobblestones without tripping or losing balance)
• Reactive gait recovery: responding effectively once balance is lost (e.g., a recovery step after a trip)

Each of these processes might be improved through different overlapping and interacting mechanisms: direct skill improvements; indirect changes in gait; and psychological factors such as confidence or threat perception [5].

Looking back over more than a decade of research, what stands out is not a single result, but how much the questions themselves were shaped by perspective. Approaching fall prevention through the lens of a sprint coach led me to prioritize task specificity, skill acquisition, and considering dose–response and dose-generalisability relationships [6] – ideas that are familiar in sport, but historically underemphasized in fall prevention. This does not mean that this perspective is definitive, complete or correct. But it illustrates the value of interdisciplinary thinking, particularly in a field where progress depends on integrating biomechanics, neuroscience, psychology, and clinical practice.

If there is one takeaway from my ISPGR lecture, it is that fall prevention, and posture and gait research more broadly, may benefit as much from changing how we think as from changing what we measure. Societies and conferences that actively encourage cross-disciplinary dialogue play a crucial role in making that possible [1].

References

1: Filtjens B, McCrum C. (2026) Perspectives on interdisciplinary posture and gait research from the ISPGR 2025 World Congress: Where do we stand and what are the next steps? Gait & Posture 124: 110058. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2025.110058

2: McCrum C, Bhatt TS, Gerards MHG, Karamanidis K, Rogers MW, Lord SR, Okubo Y. (2022) Perturbation-based Balance Training: Principles, Mechanisms and Implementation in Clinical Practice. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living. 4:1015394. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.1015394

3: McCrum C, Grevendonk L, Schaart G, Moonen-Kornips E, Jörgensen JA, Gemmink A, Meijer K, Hoeks J. (2021) Type II muscle fibre properties are not associated with balance recovery following large perturbations during walking in young and older adults. bioRxiv doi: 10.1101/2021.11.26.470167

4: Grevendonk L. Connell NJ, McCrum C, Fealy CE, Bilet L, Bruls YMH, Mevenkamp J, Schrauwen-Hinderling VB, Jörgensen JA, Moonen-Kornips E, Schaart G, Havekes B, de Vogel-van den Bosch J, Bragt MCE, Meijer K, Schrauwen P, Hoeks J. (2021) Impact of aging and exercise on skeletal muscle mitochondrial capacity, energy metabolism, and physical function: a cross-sectional study. Nature Communications. 12: 4773. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24956-2

5: van der Hulst EG, Meijer K, Meyns P, McCrum C. (2025) Design Considerations for Technology-assisted Fall-Resisting Skills Training Trials in Older Adults: A Pilot and Feasibility Study. medRxiv doi: 10.1101/2025.10.03.25337262

6: Karamanidis K, Epro G, McCrum C, König M. (2020) Improving trip and slip-resisting skills in older people: perturbation dose matters. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. 48(1): 40-47. doi: 10.1249/JES.0000000000000210

About the Author

ISPGR was delighted to award Dr Benjamin Filtjens its 2025 Emerging Scientist Award (ESA). In his ESA Plenary Talk at the 2025 World Congress in Maastricht, Netherlands, Dr Filtjens shared how artificial intelligence (AI) and wearable sensors are helping tackle one of the most challenging symptoms of Parkinson’s disease: walking difficulties and freezing of gait. This post summarizes the key points from this talk.

Walking difficulties are among the most disabling symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. Two important aspects of gait assessment in Parkinson’s are the severity of freezing of gait (FOG) and the overall gait severity rating. FOG refers to sudden episodes in which patients are unable to move forward despite intending to, while a global clinical impression of gait is measured using standardized rating scales such as the (MDS-)UPDRS. Traditionally, both are assessed visually by clinicians reviewing gait tasks or video recordings. While effective, this approach is time-consuming, subjective, and difficult to scale.

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising way forward: Deep learning methods can automatically process wearable-sensor or video data to estimate FOG episodes or UPDRS gait scores. Yet, a persistent challenge in the field is cross-center generalization. Most AI models are trained on relatively small, single-center datasets, which limits their ability to handle the wide variability in patient gait patterns, clinical tasks, and sensor/video configurations. As a result, models that work well in one center often perform far less accurately when tested on data from another center (or a different group of patients).

Our two recent studies approached the generalization problem from complementary perspectives. The first examined how wearable-sensor–based deep learning models for FOG detection transfer across six independent cohorts, and whether we can improve transfer by means of FOG-IT, a web application that enables human–AI collaborative scoring of FOG episodes (Figure 1).  In this workflow, the AI provides an initial prediction and the user can verify and correct it, keeping clinical expertise in the loop. The second examined how video-based deep learning models for UPDRS gait severity estimation transferred across four independent cohorts, and whether this could be improved using CARE-PD, the first open-source, multi-center 3D gait dataset with clinical labels.

In our studies, we found that models performed well when trained and tested on data from the same site, but their robustness dropped notably when applied to data from other centers. Study-specific metrics decreased by approximately 14% for FOG detection and 46% for gait-score estimation compared to within-site results. However, we could mitigate this drop by adapting the source-site–trained model using a small local sample from the target site. For FOG detection, an AI-assisted annotation workflow such as FOG-IT can make collecting such a local sample more feasible: the model first proposes FOG episodes and clinicians then correct these predictions, producing clinician-verified annotations that can be used to fine-tune (update) the model for the new center, while also providing oversight during deployment. These findings show that between-center differences reduce model robustness and strongly underline two needs:  humans should remain involved in the scoring process to verify performance and enable safe, efficient local adaptation when  a model is applied in a new setting (e.g., via FOG-IT, Figure 1), and the field needs multi-center development and validation datasets with standardized benchmarking to improve generalization (e.g., CARE-PD).

Figure 1. FOG-IT AI-assisted workflow. A deep-learning model generates initial annotations of FOG episodes in gait tasks. A human evaluator reviews and corrects these annotations and makes the final decision, thereby enabling correction of cross-center algorithmic biases.

FOG-IT (now called AID-FOG):

More information about the study—including a demo of the AI-assisted annotation platform and a link to the manuscript—is available on its webpage: https://aidfog.be/

Yang, P. K., Carlon, J., Goris, M., Klaver, E., Nonnekes, J., van Wezel, R. J., … & Filtjens, B. (2025). Deep Learning for Freezing of Gait Assessment using Inertial Measurement Units: A Multicentre Study. medRxiv, 2025-06; doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.27.25330405.

CARE-PD:

More information about the study—including links to the benchmarking codebase, the multicentre dataset, and the manuscript—is available on its webpage: https://neurips2025.care-pd.ca/

Adeli, V., Klabucar, I., Rajabi, J., Filtjens, B., Mehraban, S., Wang, D., … & Taati, B. (2025). CARE-PD: A Multi-Site Anonymized Clinical Dataset for Parkinson’s Disease Gait Assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04312.; doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.04312.

About the Author

I have been asked to write a short blog as part of the Honorary Membership that was bestowed upon me in Maastricht. In particular I was asked to speak about my experience with ISPGR as well as to provide tips and advice to junior researchers for achieving a successful career in posture and gait research. Let me attempt the latter point first drawing from my experience over the past 44 years post BSc.

First, of course, always think critically and objectively, but I would add that it is also necessary to BE HUMBLE in such thinking. One can be confident within the framework of the current knowledge, but there is still so much yet to understand and there are still many limits in our tools and theories that beg a cautious confidence. One should certainly never camp a career within any one theory. Humbleness allows us to be open to change and to minimize, and maybe even recognize, our biases. Also, while big breakthroughs are wonderful and we may dream of being the ‘big name’ researcher that broke through an idea, in reality, science is mostly moved forward by chipping away and adding little new nuggets of knowledge. While these nuggets are often not shocking, if the science is based on sound logic and well-thought-out protocols or models, they often catalyse other ideas and approaches or, also important, confirm existing ideas.

Next, BE PASSIONATE about what you do. Don’t jump on a bandwagon topic just because it is popular, or at least not until it has an undercurrent pull on your genuine interest. If I and the collaborators with whom I have worked have had any success, it is that our passion for knowledge has allowed us to attack issues not yet seen or at least not in a certain way, or perhaps in a way that combines ideas not yet put together. When you feel your passion wane, close the office door and pull out recent (or older) data and swim in it for a while.

Another piece of advice, actually part of being humble, is to SEE EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE TEAM AS A COLLEAGUE. I have learned something from every person, from trainees to research assistants to co-PIs, even in cases that required more mentoring than anticipated. Remember that every research question begs a team of brains well beyond the principal investigator. You will also be surprised by the productivity related to true intellectual respect. Related to this point, I would suggest being less possessive about your research program, i.e., BE A MENTOR, A COORDINATOR, BUT NOT AN OWNER. This is, believe me, very difficult to practice within our environment of institution and publication competition and the ego is difficult to control. Only in the latter part of my career have I tried (still a work in progress) to avoid talking about MY students, MY program, MY lab.

Another point is to EMBRACE GRANT WRITING. While most of us complain about it, and are disheartened by grant refusals, realize that every grant preparation is an opportunity to take stock of where the science is and what exciting things should be next. Even unsuccessful grants advance your thinking and will nourish the team’s next work if you write them with passion. Finally, my wife has been a rock for me (and probably felt like throwing a few at me too) throughout my scientific career. RECOGNIZE THOSE OUTSIDE YOUR RESEARCH PROGRAM who act as sounding boards, provide moral support, try to tolerate your scientific distractions that generally keep you rooted…and let them know how important they are to you.

As to ISPGR, as I mentioned when thanking everyone in Maastricht for this honour, ISPGR is a great society and has naturally grouped together many researchers that hold many of the values noted above. It has always been a safe place to expose and mutually challenge ideas and to see what flies. Having been on the board for 11 years, and on the executive for 6 years, including 2 years as president, I have seen the political, academic and social sides of ISPGR. Sure, it “ain’t” perfect, but it is mostly a wonderful place for exchange and even fun. My last message to the young researchers is to invest in your society to continue its mission and keep it moving forward.

Thank you again to ISPGR for the Honorary Member award of 2025.

Brad McFadyen

​

About the Author