SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

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

· 2024-07-02

DOI: 10.20944/preprints202407.0142.v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal 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 position and orientation 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: the Five Times Sit-To-Stand (FTSTS) and Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) tests. Position and orientation data was 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 and test-completion durations. Between-systems agreement for FTSTS (sub-)durations were all excellent, while TUG turning sub-durations were excellent (turn 1) and moderate (turn 2). 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 these (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 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.