NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundGait impairment is an early marker of Parkinson's disease (PD) and is frequently monitored to evaluate disease progression. Wearable sensors are increasingly being used to quantify gait in the real-world setting among people with PD (pwPD). Particularly, embedding wearables on devices or clothing that are worn daily may represent a useful strategy to improve compliance and regular monitoring of gait.Research questionThe current investigation examined the validity of innovative smart glasses to measure gait among pwPD.MethodsParticipants wore the smart glasses and 6 APDM gait sensors simultaneously, while performing two walking tasks: the 3-meters Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and the 7-meters Stand and Walk (SAW) test. The following spatiotemporal gait parameters were calculated from the data collected using the two different devices: step time, step length, swing percentage, TUG duration, turn duration, and turn velocity.ResultsA total of 31 pwPD (mean age=68.6±8.5 years; 35.48 % female(N=11), mean Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) total score=32.1±14.7) participated in the study. Smart glasses achieved high validity in measuring step time (ICC=0.92, p=0.01) and TUG duration (ICC=0.96, p=0.03) compared to APDM sensors. On the other hand, the smart glasses did not achieve adequate validity when measuring step length, swing percentage, turn duration or turn velocity.SignificanceThe current study suggests that smart glasses has the potential to measure TUG and step time in individuals living with PD. However, further research is needed to improve algorithms for sensors worn on the head.
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.