These data show that JZ1.40 is neuroprotective in vivo, which is translated into cognition enhancement. Physical activity promotes healthy ageing in older people. Accurate measurement of physical activity in free-living environment is important in evaluating physical activity interventions. What is the criterion validity of 1)an ActiGraph to identify physical activity at different intensity levels and 2)an ActiGraph and a smartphone to measure step rate? Community-dwelling older people aged≥60 were recruited. The index tests were using ActiGraph worn in different positions (i.e.,both wrists and hip) to measure physical activity intensity and step rate and using smartphone (i.e., Samsung J2 pro and Google Fit) worn in different positions (i.e.,trousers pocket and waist pouch) to measure the step rate. The reference standards were using indirect calorimetry (i.e.,CosMedK4b 2) to measure physical activity intensity and using direct observation for step rate. Subjects were exposed in different physical activity intensity levels (i.e.,sedentaryMET < 1.5,light MET = 1.5-2.99, moderateMET = 3.0-6.0, vigorousMd. To measure step rate, a hip-mounted ActiGraph is preferable than a wrist- worn one. A smartphone employing Google Fit generally underestimates step rate but it gives a relatively more accurate estimation of step rate when the older people walk at a speed of 4-8 km/h.A wrist-worn ActiGraph can accurately identify different physical activity intensity levels in older people, but lower cut-off points in older people should be adopted. To measure step rate, a hip-mounted ActiGraph is preferable than a wrist- worn one. A smartphone employing Google Fit generally underestimates step rate but it gives a relatively more accurate estimation of step rate when the older people walk at a speed of 4-8 km/h. Change in the lower extremity alignments in the frontal plane and muscle activation patterns have been associated with lower extremity injuries. Therefore, to prevent injuries, many therapeutic protocols focus on find ways to correct dynamic knee valgus (DKV). Thirty-one recreational male cyclists with DKV (26.4 ± 4.5 years, 176.63 ± 7.51 cm, 75.81 ± 9.29 kg, 23.20 ± 4.15 kg/m2) volunteered to participate in this study. Simultaneous recordings of kinematic and electromyography data were performed on ten consecutive pedal cycles which began during the last 30 seconds of each four test condition with band at 0.5 kg workload, with band at 2 kg workload, without band at 0.5 kg workload, and without band at 2 kg workload. The paired t-test was used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05). The results indicated significant differences in VM (band = 0.029, no band = 0.031) and VL (band = 0.015, no band = 0.035) activation between workloads in each condition. Also there were significant differences in Gmed activ considered as an effective method to increase the Gmed, Gmed/TFL ratio and control of DKV but increasing the workload during pedaling must be done with caution to prevent DKV. The differences and relationship between joint stiffness and leg stiffness can be used to characterize the lower limb behavior during different walking speeds. This study aimed to investigate the differences in whole leg and lower limb joint stiffness at different walking speeds and the interactions between leg and lower limb joint stiffness. Twenty-seven healthy adults, seventeen males (age 19.6 ± 2.2 years, height 176.0 ± 6.0 cm, mass 69.7 ± 8.9 kg), and ten females (age 19.1 ± 1.9 years, height 164.0 ± 3.0 cm, mass 59.6 ± 3.8 kg), were recruited. Dynamic leg and joint stiffness were calculated during eccentric loading from data recorded using 3D infrared motion analysis and force plates at slow, normal, and fast walking speeds. Differences in dynamic stiffness, joint angles and moments were explored between the walking speeds using Repeated Measures ANOVA with Sidak post-hoc tests. Correlations between leg, joint stiffness, and walking speed were also explored. The results indicated that the leg dynamic stiffness is decreased by walking speed, however, hip and ankle joint stiffness were increased (p < 0.001) and knee stiffness was unaffected. Leg stiffness showed no correlation with hip, knee, or ankle stiffness. A positive significant correlation was seen between hip and ankle stiffness (p < 0.01) and between knee and ankle stiffness (p < 0.001), however, no correlation was seen between hip and knee stiffness. These results suggest leg stiffness is not associated with lower limb joint stiffness during eccentric loading. This provides new information on the responses of ankle, knee and hip joint stiffness to walking speed.These results suggest leg stiffness is not associated with lower limb joint stiffness during eccentric loading. This provides new information on the responses of ankle, knee and hip joint stiffness to walking speed.Our study was designed to test a recent proposal by Cayol and Nazir (2020), according to which language processing takes advantage of motor system "emulators". An emulator is a brain mechanism that learns the causal relationship between an action and its sensory consequences. Emulators predict the outcome of a motor command in terms of its sensory reafference and serve monitoring ongoing movements. For the purpose of motor planning/learning, emulators can "run offline", decoupled from sensory input and motor output. Such offline simulations are equivalent to mental imagery (Grush, 2004). If language processing can profit from the associative-memory network of emulators, mental-imagery-aptitude should predict language skills. selleck products However, this should hold only for language content that is imageable. We tested this assumption in typically developing adolescents using two motor-imagery paradigms. One that measured participant's error in estimating their motor ability, and another that measured the time to perform a mental simulation. When the time to perform a mental simulation is taken as measure, mental-imagery-aptitude does indeed selectively predict word-definition performance for high imageable words. These results provide an alternative position relative to the question of why language processes recruit modality-specific brain regions and support the often-hypothesized link between language and motor skills.