SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Effect of optical flow versus attentional strategy on gait in Parkinson's Disease: a study with a portable optical stimulating device.

J Neuroeng Rehabil · 2008-01-18

DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-5-3PMID: 18205903

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundSeveral studies have demonstrated the capability of PD subjects to improve gait if appropriate visual cues are provided. Possible explanations referred to attentional factors and to the presence of optic flow on peripheral vision. The aim of the present study was to evaluate separately these two mechanisms in a group of fifteen subjects with Parkinson's Disease at different stages and in a group of ten age-matched controls.MethodsA microprocessor-controlled portable device implementing two different optical stimulation modalities has been used: bilateral continuous optic flow and unilateral reciprocal optical stimulus that is synchronized to the swing phase of gait. The latter allowed for the implementation of an attentional strategy.ResultsResults showed that mild PD subjects (H&Y2) tend to be more responsive to the attentional strategy, through an increase of stride length (+ 19.8%) and a compensatory decrease of cadence (- 16.2%).ConclusionAlthough stated with caution due to the limited number of considered subjects, a possible descriptive model explaining the above findings is proposed, which correlates the different responsiveness to visual stimulation strategies with the progression of pathology and the consequent changes on the activation levels of the involved motor and associative areas.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.