Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
IntroductionExternal cueing can improve gait in people with Parkinson's disease (PD), but there is a need for wearable, personalized and flexible cueing techniques that can exploit the power of action-relevant visual cues. Augmented Reality (AR) involving headsets or glasses represents a promising technology in those regards. This study examines the gait-modifying effects of real-world and AR cueing in people with PD.Methods21 people with PD performed walking tasks augmented with either real-world or AR cues, imposing changes in gait speed, step length, crossing step length, and step height. Two different AR headsets, differing in AR field of view (AR-FOV) size, were used to evaluate potential AR-FOV-size effects on the gait-modifying effects of AR cues as well as on the head orientation required for interacting with them.ResultsParticipants modified their gait speed, step length, and crossing step length significantly to changes in both real-world and AR cues, with step lengths also being statistically equivalent to those imposed. Due to technical issues, step-height modulation could not be analyzed. AR-FOV size had no significant effect on gait modifications, although small differences in head orientation were observed when interacting with nearby objects between AR headsets.ConclusionPeople with PD can modify their gait to AR cues as effectively as to real-world cues with state-of-the-art AR headsets, for which AR-FOV size is no longer a limiting factor. Future studies are warranted to explore the merit of a library of cue modalities and individually-tailored AR cueing for facilitating gait in real-world environments.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.