SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Clinical Validation of Pupil Response During Walking in Parkinson's Disease.

Sensors (Basel) · 2026-06-11

DOI: 10.3390/s26123711PMID: 42356684

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

Pupil response may be a useful biomarker in Parkinson's disease (PD) due to links with autonomic function and cognitive load. However, research has focused on static tasks, missing functional demands during real-world activities like walking.MethodsWe recruited 38 people with PD and 16 healthy controls who walked for 2 min under single- and dual-task conditions while wearing mobile eye-tracking glasses (Tobii Pro Glasses 2, 100 Hz). Pupil response outcomes (velocity, size, difference between eyes) were extracted alongside gait characteristics from inertial sensors. Known groups validity compared PD and controls; convergent/divergent validity examined relationships with cognitive, visual, clinical, and gait measures.ResultsPeople with PD had significantly altered pupil constriction/dilation velocity (p = 0.01), a larger difference between their left and right pupils (p = 0.04), and a larger mean and minimum pupil size (p ≤ 0.01) compared to controls during walking. Pupil response correlated with cognitive function (JLO, CLOX1, TMTB), visual acuity, disease severity (MDS-UPDRS-III), and gait characteristics in both groups. No dual-task effects were observed.ConclusionsPupil response during walking demonstrates known groups and convergent validity, indicating potential as a clinical biomarker for PD. Following this initial study, more research is required to further validate pupil response in PD (e.g., analytical validation and testing within real-world ecologically valid environments).

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.