SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Gait and Balance Assessments with Augmented Reality Glasses in People with Parkinson's Disease: Concurrent Validity and Test-Retest Reliability.

Sensors (Basel) · 2024-08-24

DOI: 10.3390/s24175485PMID: 39275397

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

State-of-the-art augmented reality (AR) glasses record their 3D pose in space, enabling measurements and analyses of clinical gait and balance tests. This study's objective was to evaluate concurrent validity and test-retest reliability for common clinical gait and balance tests in people with Parkinson's disease: Five Times Sit To Stand (FTSTS) and Timed Up and Go (TUG) tests. Position and orientation data were collected in 22 participants with Parkinson's disease using HoloLens 2 and Magic Leap 2 AR glasses, from which test completion durations and durations of distinct sub-parts (e.g., sit to stand, turning) were derived and compared to reference systems and over test repetitions. Regarding concurrent validity, for both tests, an excellent between-systems agreement was found for position and orientation time series (ICC(C,1) > 0.933) and test completion durations (ICC(A,1) > 0.984). Between-systems agreement for FTSTS (sub-)durations were all excellent (ICC(A,1) > 0.921). TUG turning sub-durations were excellent (turn 1, ICC(A,1) = 0.913) and moderate (turn 2, ICC(A,1) = 0.589). Regarding test-retest reliability, the within-system test-retest variation in test completion times and sub-durations was always much greater than the between-systems variation, implying that (sub-)durations may be derived interchangeably from AR and reference system data. In conclusion, AR data are of sufficient quality to evaluate gait and balance aspects in people with Parkinson's disease, with valid quantification of test completion durations and sub-durations of distinct FTSTS and TUG sub-parts.

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.